WITH the first direct contact of any kind between the prime ministers of Pakistan and India this past week, peace seems to be on the minds of many. That both sides are sticking to their basic positions has not dampened the spirit of such souls who insist on giving more weight to the telephonic conversation than, perhaps, warranted. In practical terms, however, it appears to be little more than the handshake that was forced on Atal Behari Vajpayee by Pervez Musharraf, which was more in hope than belief.
The Indian print media seems to be more realistic about the whole affair than is the case with its Pakistani counterpart, and has played up the Indian line both in terms of news and opinion columns. On the day after, the Times of India carried on its front page a report quoting officials as saying that “the ball is clearly in Islamabad’s court, and that no fresh conciliatory gesture was immediately likely on New Delhi’s part.”
The report, by Siddharth Varadarajan, said the exchange of high commissioners was not an immediate possibility, and that it was for Pakistan to act on India’s concerns. “Our position remains firm ... At this stage, it is even more important for Pakistan to take firm steps towards ending cross-border terrorism,” said the report.
“There is, nevertheless, a possibility that the grant of visas for Track-II exchanges could be quietly liberalized as a follow-up to the conversation ... The resumption of bus and train links would probably come last, after the return of the two high commissioners ... The key remains Pakistan’s use of armed irregulars in pursuit of its objectives in Kashmir ... The PM had opened a window of opportunity in Srinagar, and Pakistan must now come good,” added the report, conveying the mood in official quarters that has been on ample display across the broad range of newspapers that India has.
On Tuesday, when the print media first carried the report about the telephone call, the Hindustan Times prominently carried a report, quoting Union Home Ministry officials, as saying that Pakistan’s ISI “is making attempts to revive militancy in Punjab in a big way and camps have been established to train Sikh youths in places including Muscat and Iran.”
The annual report of the Ministry for the year 2002-03 said “recent inputs” suggested ISI has established training centres for Sikh youths in Muscat, Dubai, Thailand and Iran with the aim of reviving militancy in Punjab. The report alone shows how much the two governments would need to do if there has to be any hope of sustainable peace. Jyoti Malhotra, writing for the Indian Express, however, is a bit more optimistic. “The Agra nightmare is over. And so is the 18-month-long deadlock spawned by the terrorist attack on Parliament,” writes Jyoti, noting that the two premiers had talked “for 10 long minutes”.
The Express has carried an account of the talks that appears to be exclusive. “Jamali, with Pakistan Foreign Secretary Riaz Khokhar sitting by his side in Islamabad, picked up the phone at 8pm and called Vajpayee. Islamabad had sent a message earlier in the day that he would like to speak to the PM and express his ‘appreciation’ to his offer of talks.
“Good Evening, Mr Prime Minister,” Vajpayee said in English. “Adaab,” Jamali is said to have responded in Urdu. “For the next 10 minutes, the conversation, largely conducted in Hindustani, revolved around the importance of looking ahead. Jamali condemned terrorism in general terms, but did not refer to cross-border infiltration.
“The K-word — Kashmir — did not figure in the conversation at all. In response to Jamali’s appreciative remarks, the PM suggested that both nations look at strengthening issues like economic cooperation, cultural exchanges, people-to-people contact and civil aviation links ... Jamali is believed to have suggested the addition of sporting links to the bilateral calendar of events,” goes the narration.
The Times of India, however, has a bit to add to it, reporting that when Jamali mentioned sporting links, “Vajpayee replied that it would be odd to play cricket when terrorists were killing people”. It was in this specific context that “Jamali said Pakistan condemned terrorism in all forms,” the paper has reported.
The Express has quoted “sources from Islamabad” as saying that Jamali’s telephone call was “indicative of the decision in the system that Pakistan will respond positively to Vajpayee’s statements, and that “Islamabad hoped that New Delhi would accept Jamali’s offer at full value”.
One current that has run through the Indian media is that Pakistan has been forced to change its line ahead of the scheduled visit to the region by US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Why the same can’t be said of Vajpayee’s U-turn in Srinagar, is something they have chosen to comfortably ignore.
Muralidhar Reddy, of The Hindu, has talked of Pakistan’s preparation before the telephone call was actually made. Reddy, who is based in Islamabad, says that hours before Jamali picked up the phone, the Pakistani establishment “signalled its willingness to address one of India’s major concerns — reckless activities of some of the jehadi outfits”.
This he has said on the basis of Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat’s high-level inter-provincial law and order conference that was held on the same day. “Significantly, the minister referred to the resurfacing of the banned militant outfits under new names, and said the government was determined to deal with them. It is possible that the conference was specifically held to equip Mr Jamali with the necessary answers if Mr Vajpayee raised any question on the banned militant outfits and their activities,” says Reddy.
In an editorial comment, The Hindu has praised Vajpayee for having “created the opening through an imaginative offer, notable for its timing and place and signalling the end of his government’s diplomatic rigidity”. While talking optimistically about what needs to be done next, the editorial has warned that in case of failure, the two countries “will be inviting third-party intervention”, which, naturally, is an anathema to the Indians.
“There are sufficient signals that more than one third-party may be interested. The most powerful and concentrated challenge to bilateralism will come when the Group of 8 rich nations takes up the India-Pakistan issue in early June. Earlier, the subcontinent will be hosting the American Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage. The extraordinary global interest in a settlement of the Kashmir question arises from concerns over the dangers posed by the nuclear arms with both countries ... The two countries must demonstrate the resolve to walk the path of dialogue and peace, sidelining the extremist elements who have a vested interest in stoking the fires between India and Pakistan,” says the comment.
In another editorial comment, titled No Peace Amidst War, the Hindustan Times has also touched on the third-party factor, saying “the US pronouncements of a deeper interest in reducing tensions between India and Pakistan threaten to have a reverse effect”. The US, it says, is “predictably ready to pay more attention to the region since the Iraq war is over”, but that the tendency to treat the Kashmir situation as a land dispute “may well reflect a wider lack of adequate understanding” of the issues involved.
Letting the proverbial cat out of the bag, it says, “The desire to treat Pakistan as the restored strategic friend, if not an ally, because of its supposed cooperation in the US war against terrorism could reinforce over-confidence among the managers of jehadi terrorism that they may have more to gain by escalating violence than improving ties with India.”
On the issue of Pak-American ties, the Times of India has tried to walk the tightrope by carrying two opinion pieces under the heading, Is US Taking a Pro-Pak Stand? Strategic affairs expert Brahma Chellaney has written in the affirmative, saying Colin Powell’s State Department is protecting Musharraf’s dictatorship. “Despite the talk in some US policy circles to create a strategic partnership with India and counter-balance China’s rising power, the State Department seems unable to frame a policy on India without bringing Pakistan into the picture ... Powell and his alter ego, Richard Armitage, led the Indian leadership up the garden path with assurances that Musharraf had agreed to permanently and verifiably end the export of terrorists. No sooner India demobilized its forces from war-ready positions than Powell and Armitage forgot about their assurances. Believing us to be gullible, Powell is sending Armitage to India on a fresh mission,” writes Brahma, stressing that the US was unwilling to “choose India over Pakistan”.
The paper’s Political Editor, Manoj Joshi, has come up with the counter-argument, saying the US is neither pro-Pakistan nor pro-India; it is pro-America. Two of his comments deserve special mention. One, that the Vajpayee government is so pro-US that Washington’s biggest problem is in keeping New Delhi at an arms length so as not to alarm Pakistan. Two, that the American policy is to back “that one institution that has caused the greatest harm to Pakistan: its Army”. The fact that the US is strengthening its hold over the country, he says, is an indication that such a policy can never be in favour of the Pakistani nation.
Returning to the editorial of Hindustan Times, the only solution the paper’s leader writer has in mind is for Pakistan to grab this “unique” opportunity, and foe Washington to change racks. “Islamabad would need to recognize that the same government in New Delhi would be much less forthcoming on the third attempt to mend fences with terrorism continuing at a vicious level and possibly escalating in the days ahead. At the same time, Washington would need to factor this reality into its own diplomatic options.” What the Indians would need to do, is, again, not something that apparently interests the Indians. So much for subcontinental peace.
WITH the first direct contact of any kind between the prime ministers of Pakistan and India this past week, peace seems to be on the minds of many. That both sides are sticking to their basic positions has not dampened the spirit of such souls who insist on giving more weight to the telephonic conversation than, perhaps, warranted. In practical terms, however, it appears to be little more than the handshake that was forced on Atal Behari Vajpayee by Pervez Musharraf, which was more in hope than belief.
