PRESIDENT Musharraf’s address to the nation on January 12 had a large audience in all parts of the world. The armed forces of the India and Pakistan were confronting each other in a dangerous standoff and the risk of a conflict that could turn nuclear appeared to be very real. This situation had followed the massing of Indian forces in a threatening posture after the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament building on December 13.

The menacing military moves made by India represented a carefully crafted policy to take the maximum advantage of the war declared against terrorism by the US after the outrage of September 11 last year. Prior to that, a head of government-level dialogue had been initiated at Agra between India and Pakistan in July; the process was set to be resumed in New York on September 25. The attack on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Washington transformed the situation, and President Bush sought to set up a worldwide coalition against terrorism.

The target identified for the war against terrorism was Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network, together with the Taliban regime that had provided them with sanctuary in Afghanistan. The attitude of Pakistan became critical because of its geographical situation. The US, which had announced that those not supporting it in its war on terrorism would be deemed to be supporting terrorism, made an urgent call for facilities from Pakistan that were crucial to its operations. President Musharraf felt that this was not a time for half measures and took the bold decision to join the coalition and to offer “unstinted” cooperation. This was done as a matter of principle, since Pakistan had itself been a victim of terrorism.

India had expected that Pakistan would be singled out for its alleged support to terrorism, and even sought to have it declared a terrorist state. Instead, Pakistan emerged as a frontline state in the war against terrorist hideouts in Afghanistan, and was rewarded with economic assistance that could allow its economy to take off. The terrorist attacks against India in Srinagar on October 1 and in Delhi on December 13, look suspect because they fitted into Indian scheme of implicating Pakistan in terrorism, and only served to damage the image of Pakistan.

That is why while condemning them, Pakistan demanded an impartial inquiry, which India turned down. Even an offer of assistance by the US in investigating the December 13 attack was rejected by India, though that would have conferred greater credibility on Indian allegations of complicity of Pakistan-based terrorist groups.

India proceeded to deploy its armed forces in massive strength close to the border with Pakistan, while its electronic media unleashed a hostile propaganda campaign against this country. There was a deliberate attempt to create war hysteria, with commentators breathing fire and spitting venom against Pakistan’s alleged record of terrorism and went so far as to suggest that the problem lay in the very existence of Pakistan.

The shifting of Indian forces deployed in other parts of the country to strengthen the concentrations along the Pakistan border was publicized, and warlike statements became the order of the day. Provocations along the LoC in Kashmir increased, while Indian diplomacy launched a campaign to vilify Pakistan and to create justification for military action.

As international concern grew over the rising tensions in South Asia, pressure mounted mainly on Pakistan, asking it to take action against jihadist groups and even to hand over the elements identified by India for complicity in terrorist acts. Though western leaders appreciated Pakistan’s role in the war against terrorism, they tended to be supportive of India’s stand, and sought more drastic action against terrorist organizations identified by the US and India. The efforts made by Pakistan to draw attention to escalating state terrorism by India in Kashmir did not appear to register as effectively as India’s vilification campaign against Pakistan.

President Musharraf and his government worked actively to promote appreciation of Pakistan’s reasonable and moderate stance in the face of India’s military build-up and threats. The president remained in touch with world leaders, and used his visit to New York and other countries for contacts at the highest level. He also paid a state visit to China in late December, and again passed through China on his way to the SAARC summit in Kathmandu in the first week of January. Notwithstanding India’s frosty attitude at the summit, he sought opportunities to interact with Prime Minister Vajpayee. Thus the drive by India to create a war psychosis was to some extent countered, with widely appreciated moves in favour of a peaceful dialogue.

The pressure on Pakistan to do more to meet India’s demands continued and even British Prime Minister Tony Blair adopted a stance that was more favourable to India. President Musharraf decided that the time had come to remove all ambiguities concerning Pakistan’s stance on terrorism, religious extremism, and even on the type of society Pakistan was going to have.

The president’s address to the nation on January 12 was one of the most forthright and comprehensive statements of policy in the country’s history. He declared that Pakistan would not permit terrorism in any form or manifestation. This was an unequivocal commitment that was translated into action by the banning of five extremist religious and sectarian organizations and the arrest of hundreds of their activists. This led the US president to comment that Pakistan had upheld its status as a frontline state in the fight against international terrorism.

Apart from banning all lashkars and sipahs, President Musharraf ordered a revamping of the whole madrassah system, requiring all madaris to be registered by March 23 and their curricula to be modernized. He left no doubt about his commitment to creating a progressive and tolerant society, based on the teachings of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), and the ideals of the Quaid-i-Azam and Allama Iqbal.

While launching a reordering of national priorities, the president declared that the moral and political support to the Kashmir cause would continue. He made an appeal to the international community, the US in particular, to play its role in resolving the Kashmir issue, and in ending state terrorism which India was practising in Kashmir. The human rights organizations also had to take note of the flagrant violations going on in the occupied territory. Lastly, he declared that no Pakistanis would be handed over to India for trial.

India’s official response was articulated by Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh, who extended a cautious welcome to the speech, and recognized the need for some time for the implementation of the measures announced on Jan 12. However, he voiced disappointment at the decision not to hand over persons accused of terrorist acts. He also indicated readiness to discuss all problems, including Kashmir, within a fixed time frame , once progress had been made in the elimination of terrorist activities in Kashmir.

While he sounded a positive note, quoting Prime Minister Vajpayee that India would take two steps if Pakistan took one towards better relations, Defence Minister George Fernandes stuck to a hardline position by declaring that India would not withdraw its forces from their frontline positions until “cross-border terrorism” had completely ceased.

Even the position taken by the Indian foreign minister had some negative features, including rejection of any role by the UN or for third-party mediation on Kashmir. Interior Minister L.K.Advani, who was visiting the US at that time at the head of a strong delegation sounded a moderate note in his interviews on the American television but struck a different note while addressing a press conference at the Indian embassy. He received special attention as the prime-minister-in-waiting but his past image is that of a Hindu extremist who used the notorious rath yatra of 1992 to stir up communal passions that resulted in widespread rioting and the destruction of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.

The Indian press commented favourably on President Musharraf’s speech of January 12 and called for reciprocal gestures by India. Malayam Singh Yadav, the leader of the Samajwadi Party, called upon the Indian government to respond to the action taken by Pakistan against terrorist groups by outlawing such extremist Hindu outfits as Shiv Sena and Vishwa Hindu Parishad.

The primary purpose of the January 12 address was to help cool down tensions heightened by the massing of Indian armed forces against Pakistan. US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who visited the subcontinent soon after the speech, called on India to withdraw its forces to their peace-time positions, echoing the call made by Pakistan for a de-escalation along the border. The stand taken by India, that such withdrawals would follow the end of”cross-border terrorism” shows that it has no intention of creating an atmosphere conducive to a peaceful dialogue.

The international community can judge how far President Musharraf has gone to reduce tensions, and to safeguard peace. The ball is now in India’s court. The BJP-led government has some anti-terrorist steps of its own to ponder, specially with extremist Hindu groups threatening to go ahead with the construction of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, in defiance of India’s Supreme Court ruling. The withdrawal of India’s armed forces to their peacetime positions is being demanded by all segments of world opinion. The great powers, and the US in particular, must exercise their influence not only to safeguard peace, but also in favour of an early dialogue on Kashmir and other bilateral problems.

PRESIDENT Pervez Musharraf’s much anticipated speech of January 12 may indeed signal the start of a new phase in Pakistan’s history. Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, after his meeting with General Musharraf in Islamabad in early January, had predicted that the Pakistani president was working on a historic speech. Most comments by the western press on the speech seem to suggest that President Musharraf may indeed have given such an address.

That the speech may have created history is not only because it s