Primacy of consensus

Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz's resolve to develop a working relationship with the opposition deserves to be welcomed. In an interview with a Dawn panel, the prime minister admitted that there were "hardly" any policies that were based on a consensus.

The results of this short-sighted approach are before us. Whether it is foreign policy or key amendments to the Constitution, there is no consensus among the political parties and groups.

This has cost the nation dearly. The army crackdown in March 1971 in the then East Pakistan without a national consensus on the issue led to war and cost the nation the loss of half the country.

One expected that the tragedy would make us wiser and we would manage the rest of the country with care by following policies based on national approval. Instead, the unilateralism characteristic of the military has continued to be the norm of policy-making.

The thoughtless involvement in Afghanistan in the eighties and the unqualified support to the Taliban have led to consequences which are before us. These include the menacing rise of religious militancy, the spread of the drug and Kalashnikov culture, and ethnic and sectarian conflict.

The cumulative effect of all this is to be seen in the economy. Industrial development has virtually come to a halt because foreign and local investment is shy, causing unemployment and widespread poverty.

Worse, because the agricultural sector is stagnant, there has been a trek from villages to cities, leading to a deterioration in urban life. All this could have been avoided or perhaps their intensity made a little less severe if we had let the democratic process take its course.

The issues on which the nation expects a consensus today are quite a few. First and foremost, the ruling party and the opposition need to rededicate themselves to constitutionalism and the rule of law.

Specifically, this requires the military-backed ruling party to stop acting unilaterally, and the opposition to move away from a confrontational posture. Two, the water crisis - as part of the wider problem of federalism - has assumed dangerous proportions.

The below average rainfall for more than a decade and the silting of the Tarbela dam have hurt agricultural production and led to a lot of bad blood among the upper and lower riparians.

In due course of time, we will also be burdened with power shortages nation wide. The government has hinted that it is determined to go ahead with the construction of the Kalabagh and/or Bhasha dam. Such a move without the small provinces' consent will have grave political implications.

President Pervez Musharraf made it clear in a TV interview the other day that he was aware of the reservations Sindh has about another big dam. Three, there must be an accord among the provinces on the sharing of the divisible financial pool.

Four, the government must develop an understanding with the opposition on how the war on terror should be fought. The two mainstream parties - the PPP and the PML-N - and the MMA have serious reservations about the operations in Wana. Five, Balochistan's problems and grievances need urgent attention.

In his interview, the prime minister said he believed in "engaging" the province's nationalist parties. One hopes that the newly formed Senate committee will examine the issues agitating Balochistan threadbare.

It should concentrate on the way some vital projects - Gwadar, the coastal highway and Saindak - are being executed. The nationalist parties fear that the locals may be deprived of the benefits of these projects, especially in matters of employment.

Let us hope that the prime minister is able to translate his ideas into action, and the government and the opposition develop a working relationship instead of being locked in perpetual confrontation.

Keep the dialogue going

The first phase of the India-Pakistan composite dialogue concluded on a happy note on Monday as the foreign ministers of the two countries met in New Delhi and reaffirmed their commitment to their joint quest for peace.

Significantly, the atmosphere was marked by warmth and friendship and it has been agreed that the next round of the dialogue will be held in the coming months - culminating in another meeting of the two foreign ministers in December.

Although skeptics have questioned the speed of the dialogue and the failure to make progress on Kashmir, it is unwise to be so impatient at this stage. Considering the protracted nature of the conflict between India and Pakistan and the fact that the two countries have gone to war thrice and have been on the brink of war a number of times, it is a major development that the cease fire along the LoC has been holding for over nine months. Moreover, no one ever expected a speedy settlement on Kashmir.

The two sides have reached agreement on a number of other issues - some of these were agreed to earlier while others have met with the approval of the two sides in the last round of talks. The Munabao-Khokhrapar rail link will be opened shortly.

Communication links will be established between the Indian coastguards and Pakistan's security maritime agency. Conventional and nuclear confidence-building measures will be worked out.

A joint survey of the boundary pillars in the Sir Creek area will be undertaken. A bus service will be started to link Amritsar with the Sikh holy places in Punjab, the two foreign offices will exchange visits by their diplomats and they will cooperate in the energy sector.

True, these are issues which require technical details to be worked out for which meetings have been arranged in the coming months. If a specific timeframe had been laid down, it would have been reassuring for the people on both sides of the border.

An open ended approach to problem solving is best avoided because so many talks have been held that very often the impression is conveyed that these are designed to keep the people quiescent rather than actually coming to grips with the conflicts.

As for Kashmir, to which Pakistan has been holding on as the core issue, it was not expected to be resolved in one swoop. In fact, Mr Kasuri and Mr Natwar Singh, realizing the danger of vitiating the climate at this stage, were quite restrained when they expressed their concerns about events in Kashmir.

The Indian foreign minister was concerned about the cross-border infiltration which, according to him, still continued. Pakistan's foreign minister was unhappy about the human rights situation in the occupied state.

These issues have to be addressed and will be taken up when the Kashmir dispute is discussed in the relevant committee set up for the purpose. But until that happens, common sense demands that the less intractable issues be taken up and resolved. This would create a positive atmosphere in which the more sensitive issues could be addressed.

This is an opportunity for peace which may not come again. With the borders between the two countries opening up and more frequent exchange of visits between the two sides, the people-to-people contacts have deepened.

It has clearly emerged that there is no animosity between the two sides at the popular level. The success of these exchanges - the India-Pakistan Forum for Peace and Democracy is celebrating its tenth anniversary in Lahore - has led to a widespread belief that the tensions between the two countries are often created by their governments which have a vested interest in remaining at loggerheads.