Author:
Publication: Newsinsight.net
Date: December 14, 2006
URL: http://www.newsinsight.net/archivedebates/nat2.asp?recno=1543
We question Pranab Mukherjee's ability to
lead the foreign office.
There are two contradictions that finally
got exposed yesterday in a less than wholesome manner. Arunachal Pradesh has
been made a state of the Indian Union. Elections are being regularly held
there. MPs have been returned to Parliament. How can we be then negotiating
Arunachal's status with the Chinese who lay claims on it? Turn to Jammu and
Kashmir. There is a Parliament resolution that makes it an integral/ inalienable
part of India. Meaning, its status cannot be negotiated with our rival claimant,
Pakistan. A Parliament resolution also seeks return of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
Since Pakistan won't give it up and a military grab is out of question, it
remains with our enemy. On what basis can we be negotiating with Pakistan
on J and K? Yet, we have been doing so since A.B.Vajpayee started the Lahore
peace process. Prime minister Manmohan Singh has often repeated he has no
mandate to redraw the boundaries of India, which includes the borders of J
and K. So how has he been advancing the peace dialogue with Pakistan? And
never at the same time demanding the return of PoK? These contradictions on
Arunachal Pradesh and J and K finally came out in the open yesterday. L.K.Advani,
the leader of the opposition in Parliament, demanded to know how the Chinese
ambassador to India could say Arunachal Pradesh was being "actively negotiated"
when a Parliament resolution already stated it was an integral part of India.
To be fair to Advani, he wasn't laying any trap for the government. In Parliament,
he has functioned with utmost responsibility, and understood the compulsions
of government in sensitive matters. When the Chinese ambassador first laid
full claims on Arunachal Pradesh in a TV interview, Advani wanted a parliamentary
clarification that the state was an integral/ inalienable part of India. The
government said it would embarrass the visiting Chinese president, Hu Jintao,
to raise it in his presence. Advani graciously withdrew from it till after
Hu had gone. At that time, the foreign minister, Pranab Mukherjee, spoke.
Having already repudiated the Chinese ambassador, he insisted in Parliament
that Arunachal was non-negotiable. With the Chinese ambassador revisiting
the controversy, saying India and China were "actively" negotiating
Arunachal Pradesh's status, it was natural for Advani to react. But the foreign
minister betrayed a rare attack of nerves. He spoke more than he should have,
and indeed exposed the weakness in India's position. On one hand, Mukherjee
stated the settled position on Arunachal Pradesh. It was an integral part
of India. It was inalienable. And there would be no negotiations on its status.
When it was pointed out the Chinese ambassador had made precisely these claims
of "active negotiations", Mukherjee went off the groove. He said
as Advani had been in government, he ought to know negotiations on even settled
issues went on. Well, surely, Advani knows this if Mukherjee says he known
it. We also know it. But that doesn't make it right. How can we have any negotiations
with China on Arunachal Pradesh when it has been inalienably integrated to
the Union? Aren't the negotiations defiant of the collective will of Parliament?
Advani is not in government to be able to answer this. Pranab is. So what
does he say? It is no use saying the NDA did it, if it did it. What is the
objective justification for it? That is one. A man in Pranab Mukherjee's position
ought to know when not to speak anymore. But Advani had apparently riled him
so much, he veered the discussion dangerously to Kashmir. He mentioned the
Parliament resolution on J and K. Despite that, the government was in discussion
with Pakistan on the state. By Advani's logic, Pranab said, even those discussions
must be put on hold. But yes, they must be, whether or not it is Advani's
logic. Given our position on J and K, negotiations with Pakistan are meaningless.
But not only did Pranab Mukherjee expose his own absurdity, he needlessly
dragged in J and K, and opened a flank for Pakistan to attack upon. Yes, true,
no Pakistani attack will now make any difference. Opinions on this side are
so congealed against any negotiations on J and K, no government can overturn
it. Pranab's gaffes on J and K won't make material difference to our position.
But should a foreign minister be making such gaffes? Should he place himself
in such an indefensible position? Blaming Pranab Mukherjee alone won't retrieve
the situation. Our contradictions on J and K and Arunachal Pradesh have to
be attacked at the roots, and the attacks have to be regime neutral. Why did
Vajpayee invite General Parvez Musharraf to an Agra summit when Advani and
Jaswant Singh had first hand assessed that the J and K ceasefire was doing
well? To this day, nobody knows. Since the RTI won't get you any closer to
the former PM's thinking, we can only conjecture. Vajpayee deemed the Agra
summit a giant leap of statesmanship. It blew up in his face. Within days
of the Agra failure came renewed terrorism in J and K and within months the
Parliament attack, which happened five years ago yesterday. Even the reopening
of the Arunachal question has a Vajpayee connection. In 2003, the statesmanship
bug took Vajpayee to China. He had the mistaken notion that a peace/ border
settlement or deal with China would work wonders in the 2004 general elections.
What a notion. The Indian voting public is one of the most insular in the
world. It wouldn't care what happens in another region of its own state, leave
alone a neighbouring state, much less a neighbouring country. Whatever China
conceded to Vajpayee - an iffy status for Sikkim - it won India's approval
on its claim over the Tibetan Autonomous Region, and it got Arunachal in active
negotiations. The Chinese ambassador is merely repeating this history. But
the fact that the NDA was stupid about J and K and Arunachal Pradesh is no
excuse for the UPA to be foolish as well. There can be no negotiations on
both states. This is the settled position of Parliament. The executive cannot
shut its eye to this reality, and negotiate away territories. Jurists will
be able to tell this better. But if Parliament resolutions lay full claim
on these states and other foreign occupied territories, the government cannot
be in negotiations except to provision the return of occupied territories.
In other words, the government has no basis to hold a peace dialogue with
Pakistan on J and K or negotiate Arunachal Pradesh with China. Meanwhile,
Pranab Mukherjee has made himself a figure of ridicule. We wonder how he can
survive - and carry through India's position - in the cutthroat world of international
diplomacy.
