Author: M. V. Kamath
Publication: Free Press Journal
Date: April 20, 2006
URL: http://www.samachar.com/features/200406-features.html
One never knows what goes on behind the scenes
when an American President calls on Delhi and Islamabad. What actually did
transpire when President Bush discussed matters with Prime Minister Dr Manmohan
Singh? And what transpired when Bush held talks with General Musharraf?
Consider this: not long after Bush returned
home, Dr Manmohan makes a bold offer of "a treaty of peace, security
and friendship'' to Pakistan and almost simultaneously, as if on cue, Musharraf
calls on "all foreign militants" to leave Pakistan failing which
they would be ``crushed". Strong words these.
Was it sheer coincidence as some experts would
like us to believe? Or was there an alien but helping hand pushing both parties
to make some solemn observations? Nobody can question the soundness of Dr
Singh's proposals. They make eminent sense.
For example, he said that it was wrong to
link the normalisation of relations between India and Pakistan with finding
a solution to the Kashmir issue. Suggesting a "step-bystep" approach,
Dr Singh said both sides should begin a dialogue with the people "in
their area of control" to improve "the quality of government".
Everybody knows that there is hardly any self-government
in the area of Kashmir under Pakistan's control. Dr Singh said borders which
could not be redrawn should be seen as "just lines" on the map so
that the people on both sides of the Line of Control were able to move freely
and trade with each other. This is not a very novel idea.
When Goa was under Portuguese rule, Goans
could enter and quit the state without visas and so could rest of the Indians.
And literally hundreds of Goans studied in India and were employed in India.
Dr Singh said he also envisaged a situation
where the two parts of Jammu & Kashmir can, with the active encouragement
of the Government of India and Pakistan, work out cooperative, consultative
mechanisms. It was also possible, said the Indian Prime Minister, to come
to a "meaningful agreement' on the Siachin, Sir Creek and Baglihar Dam
issues.
And even more significantly he added: "The
time has come to leave behind the animosities and misgivings of the past and
to think the unthinkable of moving together". That Musharraf should learn
to behave was a message that was originally conveyed by President Clinton
and, one suspects, Bush merely repeated it, probably in more strong words
when he spoke to Musharraf.
The message, as recorded by Strobe Talbott
in his book Engaging India, was plainly this: Return to democracy, show restraint
in Kashmir, exert pressure on terrorist groups and help in capturing bin Laden.
According to The Hindu, a string of attacks
on prominent leaders of Pakistanbased Islamic terrorist groups has sparked
speculation that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence may be cracking down
on organisations hostile to Musharraf's pro-United States policies. In recent
weeks a number of terrorists have indeed been shot.
On 21st March Maulana Fazl-ur- Rehman Khalil,
former head of the proscribed Harkat-ul-Mujahideen was captured and beaten
up with rifle butts. Earlier in March a group of unidentified men killed Amir
Abu Hanif, a prominent leader of the Lashkar-e-Taiba's parent organisation,
the Jamaat-ud- Dawa.
Some time later, police in the troubled South
Waziristan province arrested four Hizb-ul- Mujahideen cadre. In northern Waziristan
security forces killed "upto" 20 militants. And according to Indian
Army sources, infiltration is clearly slowing down.
To what extent Musharraf is serious about
coming to terms with India is yet to be seen, though Dr Singh himself praised
Musharraf for taking "bold steps to curb extremism" and complimented
him for that. It is more likely that this time President Bush read the riot
act to Musharraf.
In other words Indo-US relations have undergone
a sea-change and Musharraf is not such a fool that he does not realise that
Pakistan's usefulness to the US is coming to a slow end.
For roughly 50 years, as two American south
Asia experts Lloyd and Susanne Rudoph have observed, the US had "destabilised"
the south Asian region by supporting Pakistan in its wars with India and encouraging
it in its demand for 'parity' with its eastern and five-times larger neighbour.
Pakistan's obsession for 'parity' with India
is laughable if it were not affecting the process of establishing peace in
the sub-continent. Pakistan's rule hardly means anything in Baluchistan where
Islamabad is hated. The North West Frontier is continuously at loggerheads
with the Pakistan administration.
If Sindh had its way, it would stay out of
Pakistan any day. But Pakistan's pride will not allow it to hold any talks
with India except on terms of total equality. That should be of no concern
to India.
At the United Nations, with a membership of
195 countries, all countries are "equal" and in the General Assembly
little Cuba or Mauritius carries the same one vote as giant United States
does. But political "equality" and "economic and financial
strength" are two entirely different matters.
On the latter issue, Pakistan is no match
to India. And that was conveyed to Musharraf by Bush in no uncertain terms.
And that was reflected in the joint statement issued by Bush and Singh in
July 2005, which laid stress on transforming the relationship between their
two countries in establishing a "global partnership".
And, no less significantly, an American quasiofficial
like Ashley Tellis, who is senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace and known to be close to the US establishment, was to
say that the US "would invest in the energy and resources to enable India
- the pre-eminent regional state - to secure as trouble-free an ascent to
great power status as possible".
Sneers have been heard in many circles about
Indian prospects of becoming a 'great power'. It doesn't fluster Delhi, as
it should not. Greatness is not something that is bestowed on, but acquired.
But Pakistan can see light and take, as Dr Manmohan Singh said, "a long
view of history", both Pakistan and India can prosper and keep the United
States - indeed all powers trying to play games in south Asia at arms' length.
Pakistani leadership should understand that
they have played the British, the American and later the Chinese game long
enough to no effect.
Now Prime Minister Singh has offered his hand
of friendship and Musharraf would be wise to accept it gladly and determinedly.
For start he can dismantle the ISI and on Jammu & Kashmir listen to the
Indian Prime Minister's voice of reason.
If India and Pakistan sign Peace Treaty with
Pakistan accepting the reality of Jammu & Kashmir, theirs would be the
world. Terrorists, then, could be shown their place in no time, as they deserve
to be shown.
