Talking about Kashmir, a BJP parliamentarian said if India was forced to hand over the the Valley to Pakistan, it would be accompanied with the dowry of a substantial population of Indian Muslims. Was he hinting at another exodus of Indian Muslims?
THE recent week-long tour of India by a delegation of Pakistani parliamentarians turned out to be most enlightening in view of meetings with the likes of former Indian prime ministers V.P. Singh and I.K. Gujral, Foreign Minister Kunwar Natwar Singh; Home Minister Shivraj Patel and Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee. On the sidelines, we met Chief Election Commissioner Krishina Murti; former CEC Dr Gill, writers like Kuldip Nayar, media-persons, office-bearers of Sindhi and Urdu academies, as well the Pakistan Ambassador in New Delhi, Mr Aziz A Khan.
The visiting group comprized of Senators Gohar Ayub and Anwar Bhinder, six MNAs including Sherry Rehman and minority MNA, M.P. Bhandara. In terms of representation of political parties, there were two from the ruling PML-Q, two from PPP-P, two from the MMA, and one from the MQM. Besides, it also had serving and former officials, as well as members of media and the civil society.
In view of the important National Assembly session that involved the vote of confidence for the new premier, Mr Shaukat Aziz, I had to miss two important days of the tour that entailed meetings with Secretaries-General of Lok Sabha and Rjya Sabha, Mr G.C. Malhotra and Dr Yogendra Narain. And one with the former deputy chairperson, Dr Najma Heptulla, of Rajya Sabha.
MEETING WITH GUJRAL: This was my third meeting with him in the last seven years and all through this time, it was a pleasure to spend time with him. As on previous occasions, he presented a book, Viewpoint — Democracy, Civilization & Foreign Policy. The book depicts what is called the ‘Gujral Doctrine’ — good neighbourly relations, especially with Pakistan, and secularism.
During our meeting with him, I asked if he believed that the main stumbling block in better Indo-Pak relations is the decades old mindset of Indian and Pakistani bureaucracy, he shot back, “I don’t know about your system, but in our country, we are fortunate to have a set procedure. It applies on everything. When I was the Prime Minister, I was behind all the policies and decisions. It is another story if people don’t want to do it on their own. Consensus on certain issues does exist in Pakistan, but how you manage it, is something you need to ponder on.”
MEETING WITH V.P. SINGH: The former Indian premier lives modestly in New Delhi, with his own paintings adorning the walls of his drawing room. Mr Singh’s father, a great hunter, was the Raja of the small Indian state of Dayya, near Allahabad. He was more known as Raja Dayya. Like so many other Indian states, it too was taken by the government; soon after the partition.
Talking of President Musharraf’s visit to Agra, Mr Singh said he had told the General that he should do what he intends to do in the bilateral relationship. “I also said that both of you (President Musharraf and Premier Vajpayee) may conduct the negotiations while remaining in their own circles, because if any one tries to scale a high wall without a ladder, he stands to break his legs.”
On the bureaucracy’s handling of Pak-India negotiations, Mr Singh said: “We got an imperial system as the legacy of colonialization. Their responsibility is to report us, not to report on us. Kashmir issue has to be handled with great sincerity. However, economic issues are more important than Kashmir.”
KUNWAR NATWAR SINGH: Like US State Department’s ‘Foggy Bottom’, the Indian Foreign Office is known as the ‘Southern Block’. The impressive red stone colonial building is the key area from where the Indian foreign policy emits. We were received on arrival by FO officials. Soon we were ushered into the main Conference Room where we did not have to wait for long before Kunwar Natwar Singh joined us. He was quite happy as he had just received the news of the release of about half-a-dozen Indian hostages by their Iraqi kidnappers.
We were handed over copies of a 76-point agenda on Indian CBM proposals, which at the time were to be presented to Pakistani Foreign Minister. Some of our group members bombarded Mr Singh with questions on Kashmir, but it seemed that the latter was well prepared.
“We are not shying away from anything. I would not use the terminology of activism or pessimism but a better word is realism,” he said. He cautioned the Pakistanis against our rigid stand of linking every issue with Kashmir.
As tea was being served, one of his key officials cracked a mild joke on how our Foreign Office negotiates with the Indians.
“At the end of his half-an-hour long monologue, an Indian official asked his counterpart to pass the water bottle to him. Pat came the reply from across the table, ‘first you must resolve the core issue of Kashmir ...”
During the questions-answer session, I asked him about the reasons behind the dropping form the list of CBMs, the proposed Karachi-Mumbai ferry service, Khokrapar-Munabao rail and road link, and an uncommitted mention of the opening of visa offices in Mumbai and Karachi. He admitted that it was an error to leave them out. I also suggested to him that in view of the nature of Indo-Pak border, Wagah may not be that beneficial to the traders as would be the case with Sindh and Balochistan. Besides, sea route is always cheaper. I further suggested having more than one trade routes between the two countries. As we were leaving his office, Mr Singh said Pakistan could learn a lot from India. “Our secular roots have deepened over the years. We have a Muslim President, a Sikh as a Prime Minister, and Sonia ji being a true liberal. The system really works,” he remarked.
SHIVRAJ PATEL: During our meeting with the Indian Home Minister, his stress was that his ministry was very cautious about issuing statements over Indo-Pak relations. He also mentioned encouraging statements by President Pervez Musharraf on curbing terrorism. In general, he was optimistic about the future of neighbourly relations.
One of our parliamentarians raised the POTA issue, which was only hurting Indian Muslims. The minister said the government was considering to repeal the controversial act. On certain issues, Mr Patel minced no words, saying: “A special element benefited from our confrontation. It is also external; but mostly it is internal ... Our foreign ministers are going to meet soon (which they already have) and would consider a lot of relaxations. I assure my friends that the results of this meeting would be encouraging.”
THE MEDIA: The meeting involved prominent and prolific writers like Kuldip Nayar, Rajesh Sharma, Javed Naqvi, Sushant Sareen and about a dozen more. Kuldip Nayar urged the media community to come out from their political syndrome of blindly favouring their country’s incumbent leadership. He also pointed out that a common man in Pakistan is taught prejudice against India; however, we over here desire to keep good relations with Pakistan. Then Kuldip played his master stroke: “The Two Nation Theory is something that India cannot afford, as it would drive us towards communalism.”
Javed Naqvi said both sides needed heroes in journalism who may highlight efforts at conflict resolution. Sushant Sareen added that Pakistan’s young parliamentarians should be a safe bet for the future of relations between Pakistan and India. Rajesh Sharma said Track-II was still the best way forward. Mujeebur Rehman Shami, who was in our delegation, philosophically viewed that the Indians, despite being ahead of Pakistan in democracy, still lag behind in terms of poverty.”
THE INDIAN MINDSET: During the tour, we got a chance to meet a lot of former and sitting politicians, mediapersons and bureaucrats and were able to assess first-hand their perspective on Indo-Pak relations. They have a strong logic regarding their established secular fabric and they take much pride in jealously guarding it. They think of Kashmir as a political issue rather than a religious one. As they see it, things would only improve once a political settlement was reached. In terms of timeframe, the Indians prefer to leave it open-ended, arguing that “a 57-year-old dispute cannot be resolved in 57 days”. The other side in Indian politics was also on display, with one BJP parliamentarian making it a point to say that if India was forced to return the Valley; “it would be accompanied with the dowry of a substantial population of Indian Muslims”. Was he hinting at another exodus of Indian Muslims? I can still feel the chill in his voice.
Talking about Kashmir, a BJP parliamentarian said if India was forced to hand over the the Valley to Pakistan, it would be accompanied with the dowry of a substantial population of Indian Muslims. Was he hinting at another exodus of Indian Muslims?
