|
August
9, 2001
|
|
Pakistan’s
agenda, India’s pain
|
Killing
fields of Kashmir
A MONTH
after the Agra summit, the need is to examine as to where India
and Pakistan go from the impasse which occurred in the city of the
Taj. First, one should look at the official pronouncements about
what is planned for the future of bilateral dialogue. There has
also to be an assessment of what will actually happen in terms of
bilateral discussions. Policy pronouncements by the two governments
are characterised by a certain amount of contradiction and ambiguity.
In their Press conferences on July 17 both Abdus Sattar and Jaswant
Singh described the summit discussions as useful. They attempted
to rationalise the failure to agree on a joint declaration in terms
of certain last-minute complexities and lack of sufficient time.
This
damage control exercise has, however, proved to be tentative and
still born. General Pervez Musharraf in his widely publicised press
conference unhesitatingly laid the responsibility of the failure
of the summit on the Indian government, nuancing this approach with
personal praise for Prime Minister Vajpayee. More significant was
his assertion that all other facets of Indo-Pakistan relations can
be attended to only after India agrees to discuss the status of
Kashmir within the framework of Pakistani objectives. He indulged
in brazen mendacity asserting that Pakistan is not giving any support
to terrorist mercenaries and secessionists, and claimed that they
were indigenous ‘‘freedom fighters’’ comparing their activities
with the struggle of the Palestinians and secessionists in Chechnya,
Kosovo etc. He questioned the sanctity of the Line of Control by
declaring that the ‘‘LoC in J&K is the problem,’’ and cannot
be a basis for any future solution.
We
have been strangely adulatory in our post-summit policy pronouncements
on Pakistan. After giving initial indications of the prime minister
adhering to his acceptance of Musharraf’s invitation and about continuing
other political and official level contacts, we stressed that the
summit failed because Pakistan was not willing to accept the reality
of cross-border terrorism and its role in nurturing this terrorism.
Foreign minister Jaswant Singh’s statement in Parliament on August
6 accurately defined our perceptions of Pakistan’s policies by stating
that ‘‘the root of the J&K problem lies in Pakistan’s compulsive
and perpetual hostility towards India, arising out of the two-nation
theory’’. As far as the continuation of Indo-Pakistan dialogue goes,
there have been general indications that Vajpayee and Musharraf
might meet on the margins of the forthcoming meetings of the SAARC
summit and the UN General Assembly.
But
as far as Vajpayee and Jaswant Singh going to Pakistan in response
to invitations extended to them are concerned, signals are that
no definite time-frame has been envisaged for these visits. The
visits can come about only in the context of the ground realities
as they evolve in J&K and in Indo-Pakistan relations. India’s
foreign secretary Chokila Iyer is likely to meet her counterpart
Inam-ul-Haq in Colombo this week. However, I do not think the foreign
secretaries could initiate any qualitatively innovative steps to
push the process of bilateral dialogue forward. It must also be
noted that leaving aside the futile cogitations on Kashmir, Pakistan
refused to discuss the even more important and critical issue of
nuclear risk reduction. The singular mantra chanted by Musharraf
was ‘Kashmir’. And that also had to be discussed on his terms.
Pakistani
policy pronouncements over the last two months have rejected the
relevance of the Shimla agreement and the Lahore process. Much was
made about the lofty views expressed by Musharraf in the visitors’
book at Rajghat about non-violence and about the irrelevance of
military solutions in his banquet speech at Rashtrapati Bhavan on
July 14. But his words did not match deeds as Pakistan-sponsored
violence occurred in J&K even as the summit was taking place.
The litmus criterion on the basis of which the prospects of a positive
and purposive dialogue can be assessed is the situation on the ground
as it has evolved and is evolving after the summit.
Pakistan
has rejected all the unilateral efforts for confidence-building
measures which India made during the summit. The suggestions about
liberalising the travel facilities and visa regimes were rejected
out of hand. Pilgrims going to Amarnath have been attacked by Pakistan-backed
terrorists. Levels of violence perpetrated by them against civilians
have increased in ferocity and frequency after Musharraf’s return
to Islamabad. Heavy exchange of fire has resumed along the ethno-religious
affiliations and identities of the people of Ladakh and Jammu, asserting
that they are subject to the over-arching Islamic identity.
India
on its part has announced that it is not going to issue any new
invitation to the Hurriyat to come for a dialogue. An invitation
already exists. Initiatives related to the ceasefire in J&K
since November last and the nomination of K.C. Pant to initiate
special dialogue with the people of J&K have not taken off because
of strings being pulled against such rational discussions from Pakistan.
Vajpayee
aptly assessed Pakistan’s India policies in his address to the national
executive of the BJP on July 28 when he stated that Musharraf came
to Agra as a military man with a specific self-serving goal and
was not serious about restoring peace. An inescapable conclusion
is that there is not even a tentative meeting ground on the substance
of political issues at discussion between India and Pakistan. It
is not willing to accept the objective reality of its supporting
secessionist forces against India. More importantly, Pakistan is
not willing to pull back from giving this support. Third, Pakistan
has decided to continue its undeclared war against India not only
in J&K but in other parts of our country, which leads one to
a more critical conclusion that the macro-level agenda of Pakistan
is to generate centrifugal impulses in India on communal lines and
to disrupt Indian economy and stability aimed at the fragmentation
of India.
Aftca, sans-serif" size="2">The
Agra summit had only very marginal achievements. Indo-Pakistan discussions
should certainly be continued but Vajpayee and Jaswant Singh should
make haste slowly about going to Islamabad given the ground realities
and misplaced political obduracy and presumptive confidence of Musharraf.
|