May 30, 2004

‘This is a unique moment in the history of Pakistan-India relations and it will be the task of leaders on both sides to summon the application and intelligence reservoirs at home in order to discover salutary approaches,’ says former foreign minister, Adbul Sattar

IT is a unique and hopeful moment in Indo-Pakistan history when the governments of both countries can count on the popular support within as well as the international community for the peace process. Time has come to move on, to not merely speak in favour of settlement of issues that have been pending for 57 years, but to actually seek their settlement.

These views were articulated by Abdul Sattar, Pakistan’s former foreign secretary and foreign minister who has had a distinguished diplomatic career and held posts in key capitals of the world. Dawn Magazine recently spoke to Mr Sattar to get his perspective on the implications of the political change of guard in New Delhi on Pakistan.

He describes India’s new Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, as “a man of peace and moderation” and talks of the expectations that one can have from the new Congress leadership, particularly vis a vis Pakistan and the challenges that lie ahead.

Q. In your opinion, will the coming of Congress government in India have any major impact on the speed, substance or direction of the Pakistan-India peace process that was started after the January 6 joint press statement?

A. Statements of leaders after formation of government in New Delhi have been full of promising and justified optimism. Also, the environment — domestic and international — is conducive to progress and improvement in relations between Pakistan and India. You have this extraordinary coincidence of support for the peace process by government and opposition leaders within each country, as well as by major world powers that played a role in preventing a possible conflict in 2002, and have made their own preference for peace and stability in South Asia very clear to both sides.

This is a unique moment in the history of Pakistan-India relations and it will be the task of leaders on both sides to undertake the necessary painful reappraisal of past positions and postures, and then summon the application and intelligence reservoirs at home in order to discover salutary approaches. There are a number of issues that will demand attention. I am full of hope but at the same time aware of the difficulties and obstacles on ground to a better future.

Q. Going back to the question, do you think as a consequence of the new Congress-led government in India there will be any impact on the speed, substance and direction of the peace process?

A. I am very impressed by the transparent sincerity of the statements of Indian Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh. He has spoken of his commitment to better relations with neighbours, more so with Pakistan. But it is difficult to speculate how the leaders of the two countries will be able to generate domestic support necessary for innovative approaches different from those of the past. I am also impressed by the statements of the Congress President, Sonia Gandhi, but it is not clear that the necessary new approaches have yet been discovered. You have a problem of ensuring progress on both dispute resolution and normalization.

The Composite Dialogue envisages progress in tandem on both sets of issues, the disputes and normalization measures. Fortunately, neither side has spelled out any conditions and old questions of Kashmir first or normalization have been relegated. Even then there are very thorny issues. For instance, on Kashmir are they going to discuss normalization within Kashmir also? Is it conceivable that Pakistan and India can achieve normalization without normalization in state? So without spelling out any conditions or fixed timeframes, the two sides have to ensure that they move forward on their tracks, engendering hope for settlement of disputes and for normalization of relations and not working for faster pace on one track that might cost domestic support for the other side. So it will have to be a very delicate and measured task for both governments to see that the present atmosphere of hope is sustained with concrete progress on their tracks.

Q. Given the history of Pakistan-India diplomatic negotiations with various Congress governments, is there anything specific that we should be expecting from the Manmohan government?

A. From the Manmohan government as well as from the government on our side, we should first of all expect very painful reappraisal of past strategies. In the past, the aim has been to exploit power disparity for imposition of its own preferences on the Pakistan side. Negotiations for dispute resolutions have been tedious. Leaving aside Kashmir, which is said to be a difficult and complex issue in some respects, you see the example of Sir Creek.

Thirty-eight years ago, the boundary dispute in the Rann of Kutch was resolved through arbitration and the boundary was demarcated along more than 1,000 kilometres within two years. But the tail-end of the problem, namely the boundary in Sir Creek on the western terminus of the boundary, has remained unresolved now for 38 years. Every year we have poor fishermen from one side being arrested by naval patrols on the other side, their boats are confiscated and many of them spend long periods in jails. Many rounds of negotiations have been held to settle just that one residual part of the boundary question at the terminus.

This is the extraordinary and distressing part, that there seems to be a lack of will to find a solution. This is typical of all the other disputes between the two countries. For example, on Siachen a resolution was almost found before the 1990 period. The defence secretaries of the two countries were able to reach a certain understanding, but it could not be formalized because of another factor that came into play. In relations between India and Pakistan, even when agreements are reached, they are differently interpreted and sometimes agreements are done to death by interpretations. So there are a number of postures and attitudes that will have to be supplanted by more productive postures aimed at finding solutions. It is a very difficult task that will require commitment on the part of leaders as well as courage because they have to overcome the legacy of hard positions.

Q. Will there be a departure from the hard positions of the past, what is your assessment?

A. Certainly. Without a departure there is no hope. I have a wish for a break in this sterile pursuit of the past. People on both sides have paid a very heavy price and above all, the people of Jammu and Kashmir have suffered a terrible toll of death and destruction, specially over the past 15 years. I hope that in future more energy will be invested in discovering new paths to a better future than just reiterating old positions. The moment appears to be one of hope, but whether the two sides will be able to discover that middle ground and capitalize on it remains to be seen. The leaders can be sure that if they succeed, they will go down in history as dedicated, courageous and innovative leaders. In the long run, they will be applauded by the two nations.

Q. On the Kashmir issue, what are the difficulties that the two sides are likely to run into?

A. You have to overcome many difficulties, for example on the question of the definitions of what the two sides are looking for when they say solving the Kashmir problem. Do both sides mean the same thing; do they take into account that there is also a third side, the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Do they realize that no solution can be durable unless it is acceptable to the people of the State. Then what are they prepared to do in order to accommodate and satisfy the aspirations of the people involved. Are we looking for just freezing of the status quo or are we looking genuinely for a settlement that will be acceptable to the Kashmiri people. It is self-evident to me that you cannot have durable progress on normalization without progress on the Jammu and Kashmir settlement.

Q. You were involved in Pakistan-India diplomacy during the tragic days of 1971 and were a member of the Pakistan delegation at the Simla Conference in 1972. There is a view that Congress has always insisted that under the Simla Agreement, the Line of Control (LoC) was to become a permanent border. What is your view. Will the Manmohan government take the same line?

A. If you examine the record of the Simla negotiations and see the text of the agreement, there is no warrant for the assumption that Pakistan agreed to a settlement based on the LoC. On the contrary, that suggestion was formally put forward by the Indian side at Simla and formally, on the record, rejected by the Pakistani side. The Simla conference merely failed on that particular issue and not until the word without prejudice to the recognized position was inserted did Pakistan accept the final draft put forward by India. So, the record on that is abundantly clear. After the Indian elections in 1977, the Janata government’s foreign minister claimed that they had evidence in their possession about the understanding (on LoC) but that was immediately refuted by Indira Gandhi, India’s Prime Minister at the time of Simla.

Q. So you think the new Congress government is unlikely to take this line?

A. I can only hope that it will not. I hope it will address the Kashmir issue in a realistic and innovative manner and not repeat unconvincing arguments of the past.

Q. You have described Dr Manmohan Singh as a moderate man. Do you think the personal characteristics of a prime minister can influence Pakistan-India relations on substantive issues such as Kashmir and Siachen?

A. Surely, a vision for a better future is a prerequisite for hope. If a leader does not bring such a vision to the tasks before him, there can be no hope. But at the same time while statements augur well, they have to be supported by conscious, deliberate efforts for achieving better results. Dr Manmohan is certainly a man of peace and moderation. He is aware better than most of us are of the imperatives of the situation for a better future for the peoples of India and Pakistan. As an economist he has throughout his career recognized that priority has to be attached to development. Dr Manmohan has been eloquent in his silence in the past with regard to disputes between the two countries. As a technocrat of world-class calibre, he is no doubt aware of difficulties that persuaded him not to speak on non-economic issues in the past. But now he has been saddled with responsibility and I think he enjoys credibility as a leader committed to a better future for India, and has the support of the party leadership.

Q. You were foreign minister in the Musharraf cabinet from 1999 to 2002, and have also known Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Do you think their chemistry will match?

A. President Musharraf has a very forthcoming and engaging personality. At Agra, he and former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee clicked well. Also, President Musharraf, by virtue of the record of achievements since 1999, has established a position and credibility for his own commitment to a better future for Pakistan, and therefore he can expect to be listened to and heeded by the people, including the armed forces of the country. So, he is in a very strong position to lead the country in the salutary direction. Similarly, in India, Prime Minister Manmohan will have the support of the Congress leader and of a majority of members in the Parliament. Also, he should expect the BJP opposition to do what it said it wanted to do over the past months before the elections.

Q. So you think the two leaders (Musharraf-Manmohan) will click the way Musharraf and Vajpayee did?

A. They will. They are very responsible people and they will not allow personalities to stand in the way of requirement of the time. They have to make sincere efforts in order to achieve a meeting of the minds. There is no reason why personalities should be a problem. President Musharraf has shown that he was able to establish good communications with a once hard-line party like the BJP, and there is no reason whatsoever for any reservations about the new leadership in India.

Q. The constant refrain in Pakistan is that after the elections in India, the ball is now in India’s court as far as the normalization of bilateral relations is concerned. Do you agree with this assessment? Do you think India is solely responsible for taking the peace process ahead?

A. I don’t think the talks or the goal of better relations can be achieved by unilateral expectations. However, India has a more important role to play because it happens to be in possession of the (disputed) territory. Therefore, it has to move forward. From the Congress, one expects more not less because it has been in favour of dialogue for peace. One would be entitled to expect more from the Congress whose president, Sonia Gandhi, as opposition leader, called for success for sincere efforts at the Agra Summit in July 2001.

Q. We know that ever since 2002, the international community, particularly the US and Britain, have been involved in ensuring that India-Pakistan bilateral ties normalize. How much of that thrust by them is likely to remain and how much is Congress likely to be influenced by this thrust?

A. Not only the United States but all major powers, including the states of the European Union, Russian federation, China and Japan want peace and stability in South Asia, and they have been working for it. United States is extremely well-informed about India’s reservations regarding a intermediary role and therefore it has said it does not intend to offer itself as a mediator, but it will encourage both sides to find mutually acceptable resolutions of the difficulties that confront them.

Q. India has consistently opposed ‘third party’ mediation as a means for settling disputes with Pakistan. What are your views on this?

A. India has opposed what it calls third-country meddling. This is a posture that needs to be studied deliberately by India. We are both parties to the Charter of the United Nations and that charter envisages bilateral negotiations certainly as the first and preferred means of settlement of bilateral disputes between states. However, at the same time, it envisages other peaceful means for settlement including good offices, conciliation, mediation, arbitration and adjudication. There should be no allergy with regard to the use of these means. We have to bear in mind the logic of the UN Charter and the vision of world without war and conflict. An objective approach informed by history of international relations requires that neither side should rule out any peaceful means for the settlement of disputes.

The whole march of civilization is connected with supplanting intimidation and use of force by peaceful means of a bilateral nature, or of an impartial third-party contribution to settlement. Now, for example, on the Rann of Kutch the two sides failed to solve that problem bilaterally and then came their own decision to accept international arbitration and the problem was settled within two years.

Q. In hindsight, what do you think have been the dominant factors impeding normalization of Pakistan-India relations and what are the lessons to be drawn from our past experience?

A. The main factor, as I saw it, was desire on one side to impose its own preferences on the other. This is manifest not only in the context of disputes but even in the interpretation of agreements. We need to assimilate the lessons of civilization, the most important of them being that differences and disputes should be resolved peacefully in conformity with principles of justice and law, and not in accordance with subjective wishes of one side. There can be no friendship between individuals if one of them seeks to dominate the other. We have to recognize that the imperatives of the future demand realignment with the lessons humanity has learnt and conclusions that have been reached by the international community of states after a long period of conflict and travail.

Q. There has been speculation of possible tensions between India and US, and concern is being expressed within US circles that the ruling Congress’ own policy and its leftist allies may force a change in the growing strategic closeness between the two countries. Do you agree with this view?

A. I think this speculation is misplaced and certainly not in consonance with the aspirations of India to gain international recognition and prestige. India, whether it is under a BJP or Congress government, would love the continuation of this status of a strategic ally. It gives India leverage in the international arena. I think relations between India and United States will continue to evolve in a positive direction consistently with the trends that have developed over the past years.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)