Should India hold talks with Pakistan - now?

There is presently a growing school of thought here in this country that says Delhi must hold talks with Islamabad if not for anything else, to find out what Gen. Musharraf has in mind. Pakistani leaders keep saying that Delhi must resume bilateral talks without any conditions as "the only means for peace and a settlement of long-standing issues". Pakistan's Foreign Minister Abdus Sattar recently said in an interview that his Government "has no conditions and will pot accept any conditions for a dialogue with India."

That is all very well. Pakistan may not have any preconditions; it just cannot afford to levy any, so it is no big deal. But India has a valid point. It cannot go to the negotiating table under blackmail. As long as Pakistan continues to support terrorism and turns a blind eye to what is going, on, it cannot expect India to accept bilateral talks.

It is no argument to say that Islamabad has no control either over terrorists or over Kashmiri insurgents. To the extent that it has, it must exercise its power. Who, for instance, started shooting at the Siachin Glacier towards the end of April?

One sees a growing insistence on the part of Pakistan for bilateral talks; in part this could be because the United States is now practically at the edge of calling Pakistan a "terrorist state". The US State Department Report on Terrorism has clearly identified Pakistan and Afghanistan, as providing support to international terrorists.

A few more terrorist attacks against Jammu and Kashmir and Washington may finally find itself branding its former ally as a terrorist state. The consequences could be very hard on Islamabad. But why is there such a persistent demand among Indian strategists and commentators that Pie time has now come for holding bilateral talks?

Among them is K.F. Rustomji, a well-known strategist whose intentions surely are strictly honourable. His arguments are as follows: "Gen Musharraf "on the whole" appears to be a civilized person; he must be helped out if our sub-continent is to have a future. If we help Pakistan and Afghanistan at this time we will be doing a service to all in our neighbourhood. A wounded Pakistan, a desperate Pakistan, an isolated and unsupported Pakistan will be a real danger to us. On the other hand, if we help Pakistan out of its present predicament, it will be remembered. Why can't we help Musharraf to restore Pakistan's economy? Instead of weakening him, we should try and strengthen his hands, so that he can control terrorist groups.

"Shri Rustomji's further argument is that poverty and hunger have driven many Afghans to terrorism and that Musharraf has been diverting them to Kashmir in order to save Pakistan's own skin. Ergo, Shri Rustomji's solution is that first we must work out ways of helping Afghanistan to return to normalcy which, in turn would reduce the number of Afghans who are resorting to mercenary activities which in turn, would help Pakistan and in the end India as well.

The argument is appealing. One should certainly help Afghanistan: but how? Shouldn't the United States which once used Pakistan to arm Afghan rebels to fight Soviet intrusion in their territory now come into the picture in a big way to help starving Afghanistan? Has Shri Rustomji thought of that?

Shri Rustomji says: "Whatever we choose to do, can we refuse to talk to a neighbour who is imploring us to come to the fence and settle differences?" And he adds: "Can we close the gate-never knowing, never understanding, what he wants to say?"

That is enticingly put. But it is not that Pakistan is all that helpless and isolated. If it wants to convey something to Delhi, it can do so very easily by whispering into the ears of the US Ambassador in Islamabad as to what it has in mind and surely, Washington will then do the needful?

Pakistan cannot pretend to be helpless in controlling terrorists. Has Pakistan come to such a stage that it cannot control law and order within its own jurisdiction? India can afford to be generous, but time and again, this has been taken for weakness, right from the days of Prithviraj who was fooled by Mohammad Ghouri. And was it Musharraf who was planning Kargil when, out of the goodness of his heart, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee undertook the bus journey to Lahore?

And for being decent and willing to extend his hand of friendship to Pakistan the Congress has been berating him ceaselessly. Why should Vajpayee or any Government in Delhi allow itself once again to be taken for a ride? "We have to strive to get out of our minds the mood of retribution", says Sri Rustomji.

Goodness knows India wants peace in Jammu and Kashmir as much as if not more than anyone else. It has released three of the, Hurriyat leaders. Former Chief Minister of the State, Syed Mir Quasim is being seen as a key intermediary between Government and Hurriyat leaders. That is just as well. The All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) apparently wants Pakistan to be party to any talks with the Government.

That is a bit too early. Let talks be first initiated between the Hurriyat and the Government and let there be some understanding between the two. And if a third party has to be brought into the discussions why shouldn't it be Ladakh or Jammu? Surely, those who have been displaced from the Valley, especially the Kashmiri Pandits, should also have a voice in deciding the future of the State?

The Government may think that it can as well speak on behalf of the Kashmiri Pandits and the Ladakhis but why make such a presumption? Let the Pandit spokesmen face the Hurriyat leaders on their own. If anybody has paid a heavy price, it is the Kashmiri Pandit community. That community has every right to be represented at any talks between Delhi and the Hurriyat. Not Pakistan.

And if any understanding is reached between these two, then that should he binding on Pakistan, which in any event has no locus standi in regard to Kashmir, no matter what its pretensions are. But it may well be argued that that is not how Islamabad sees the issue and it may, in the circumstances, wish to continue to create trouble for India. Against the wishes of the Hurriyat? Against the wishes of a united Jammu and Kashmir? That would take some nerve.

But if our liberals want India to offer some face-saving device for Musharraf, that should not be difficult to arrange. Perhaps Pakistan can be invited to send a non-official observer at the talks. At any rate it is unlikely that the Hurriyat will not be in constant touch with Pakistan during the negotiations. Nobody wants to see Islamabad eat crow or be seen to be humbled though it deserves that treatment. But it must remember that it cannot blackmail India and it cannot force India to enter into bilateral talks through terrorist activities. That is plainly a No No.

In the final analysis it is up to the people of Pakistan to rebel against their own Army for bringing them to such terrible straits. There are signs that the Pakistani people are getting restive. And it is a good thing to encourage them now. Fully and firmly.
 

Back                          Top