Return
to Story Page
To print: Select File and then Print from your
browser's menu
After the Clinton-Sharif talks (or should that read `talking-to'?) in Washington, the hitherto nonexistent troops of Pakistan are going to withdraw. One appreciates Sharif's plea to the people to pray for him, for it must take a formidable effort of the human will, plus a bit of divine intervention, to first force uniformed men into existence on the wrong side of the Line of Control, then coax them into crossing over into their rightful domain. In Washington, Sharif has succeeded in performing the first act, which is essentially that of parturition. He may find the second much heavier going. If the Pakistan army does withdraw its troops, it will in effect admit that it is under the control of the civilian authorities. It was to dispel precisely this impression that the army launched the misadventure in the first place. Be-sides, if the army withdraws, it will bring with it a baggage train of mujahideen and assorted `freedom fighters'. A former ISI chief, accusing Sharif of being part of a `conspiracy' to endthe jihad, has already voiced fears that the irregulars will all descend on Islamabad, to the significant detriment of the quality of life in the city. It is believable, for disgruntled mercenaries are not the best of neighbours. All this might undermine the political authority of Nawaz Sharif, leaving him in no position to complete the peace process even if he wanted to.
That presents another issue: is Sharif really committed to peace? Or, to couch it in kinder terms, can he afford to be so committed? India's Hon'ble Defence Minister has stoutly defended his honour, but the issue is not whether Sharif had prior knowledge of the Kargil offensive. It is whether he showed any inclination to control or end it afterwards. As it happens, he did not. His failure points to the degree to which the military establishment still retains control over the political life of Pakistan. Now, the peace process depends on the success with which he is able to sell the Clinton package, and the precedents do not bode well. Infact, in the face of the Opposition backlash to his visit, and especially the obduracy of the religious groups in support of the jihad (the Jamaat has already called a nationwide strike), Sharif might find himself withdrawing, rather than the army. Similarly, there are no precedents that might encourage India to take Pakistan's overtures at face value. The joint statement of Sharif and Clinton commits itself to respect the Simla accord, the most comprehensively violated document in the history of the subcontinent. Of course, the fact that the debate has moved on from certain hoary and irrelevant UN Security Council documents ought to be welcomed. History has overtaken the UN debates of half a century ago. But, if the Simla accord is to be the basis for future bilateral talks, India should take care. There have been so many disappointments in the past that even this document has begun to lose credibility. If Pakistan really wants to make progress, it must come to the bargaining table represented by acivilian authority that is firmly in control and fully committed to the spirit of Simla. And, after the duplicity of Lahore, India should be hopeful but cautious, with one eye firmly on its six o'clock.
Copyright © 1999 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------
This story was printed from Net Express located at http://www.expressindia.com. Net Express provides a portal to India, with news from The Indian Express and The Financial Express along with sites on travel and tourism, the entertainment industry, the power sector, the environment and much more.
------------------------------------------------------------