Peace process losing steam

THE last two months have witnessed some damaging developments in the Pakistan-India peace process. If this trend continues for some time more, there is a danger that the two neighbours will revert to the confrontational relationship that prevailed before the Musharraf-Vajpayee meeting in Islamabad in January 2004 which changed the dynamics of interaction between them.

Going back to square one will not be surprising because Pakistan and India have a history of moving from crisis to detente and then back again.

It all began with the disputation between the leaders of Pakistan and India at the UN General Assembly session, followed by the bumpy meeting between President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in September in New York. Thereafter have taken place a series of developments that may be regarded as danger signals.

New Delhi’s Pakistan policy has lately displayed a paradoxical mixture. While Prime Minister Manmohan Singh affirms that “Musharraf is a man he could do business with”, his policy towards Pakistan is marked by excessive caution and even by, to quote noted Indian columnist Raja Mohan, “growing self-doubt on engaging Pakistan”. That perhaps explains why the Indian prime minister’s call for “thinking out of the box” on Kashmir seems to have been relegated to the background and his initiatives on Siachen and the proposals for a ceasefire and troops reduction in Kashmir have been put on hold.

The failure of the talks on the Kishanganga dam has exposed the hollowness of the claim that all Indo-Pakistan disputes can be resolved through bilateral efforts. India has failed to address the six objections Pakistan raised during the decade-long negotiations on the Kishanganga dam, and consequently, Islamabad is likely to move the international court of arbitration to get the dispute settled.

The history of half a century of bilateral ties amply shows that Pakistan and India have failed to resolve their differences primarily because they could not get rid of the distrust syndrome. Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz drew attention to this phenomenon during his recent visit to Dhaka where he had gone to attend the Saarc summit. “There is clearly a trust deficit between the two countries,” he said. Continuing, Mr Aziz observed that tension between India and Pakistan was the main reason for the lack of progress by Saarc. Interestingly, the Indian prime minister agreed about the lack of trust between the two countries and emphasized the need to build up trust.

It was the absence of trust between Pakistan and India which did not allow the quake diplomacy, initiated by New Delhi, to take off. But when Islamabad finally decided to accept the Indian proposals on making the LoC irrelevant, New Delhi developed cold feet. It may be recalled that the 1999 earthquake brought the two inveterate enemies Turkey and Greece closer to each other and made them jettison their centuries-old enmity and rivalry. But the chasm between New Delhi and Islamabad remains as wide today as it was before the killer earthquake struck Azad Kashmir and Indian-held Kashmir on Oct 8 this year.

An indication of the low level of ties between the two neighbours was recently provided by New Delhi when it did not invite Pakistan to observe India’s military exercises being conducted in Rajasthan near the Pakistan border. The omission of Pakistan from the guest list is all the more significant because a number of countries including China have been invited to observe the military exercises.

India’s new approach is a clear indication that the peace process is losing steam. The Indian prime minister told his Pakistani counterpart in Dhaka, during their meeting on the sidelines of the Saarc summit, that India would consider demilitarization or any redeployment of troops in Kashmir only after cross-border terrorism came to a complete halt.

The two neighbours continue to have differences on “cross-border terrorism”. According to the Indian prime minister, “Pakistan has failed to live up to its obligations to end violence in India by militants.” After admitting that there has been some reduction in cross-border infiltration, the Indian prime minister said: “It is our feeling that all that needs to be done has not been done. We have ... assurances that the future will be different from the past and we eagerly await for that to happen.” Pakistan has reiterated that it is against terrorism and violence and has condemned incidents of terrorism. It, however, believes that the heavy presence of Indian security forces in occupied Kashmir has created a human rights situation that is leading to violence.

In the present atmosphere of distrust and suspicion, it is doubtful if India will respond positively to President Pervez Musharraf’s invitation to New Delhi to grab the opportunity offered by the October 8 earthquake to resolve the Kashmir issue once and for all. He urged the Indian president, prime minister, the people of India, the media, businessmen, opposition parties and the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) to pave the way for the resolution of the Kashmir issue. President Pervez Musharraf went on to emphasize that opportunities did not fly in every day and the leaders who did not take advantage of those opportunities failed to do justice to their people.

Pakistan has proposed demilitarization of the LoC and self-governance in Kashmir as interim measures to facilitate the final settlement of the Kashmir issue. New Delhi has played down the Pakistani proposals, arguing that Jammu and Kashmir already enjoyed autonomy under the Indian constitution and had in place a popular government elected through free and fair elections.

Taking a swipe at Islamabad, New Delhi said there was clearly a lack of autonomy in Pakistan’s part of Kashmir and there had been no popular elections in Gilgit and Baltistan to determine the wishes and aspirations of the people.

The proposal for demilitarization also has not found favour with India who says there will be no question of redeployment of security forces by India while cross border terrorism and infiltration continue and there is no cessation of acts of terrorist violence.

The way New Delhi has responded to Islamabad’s proposal on self-governance and demilitarization indicates that India has decided to slow down the peace process, at least for the time being.

Why has a perceptible change occurred in the Pakistan policy of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who is now being excessively cautious in his dealings with Islamabad? Is it because of the Natwar Singh affair and the danger of its fallout on his coalition government? Or is it the terrorist attack in the capital on the eve of Diwali and the Delhi police’s claim that the bombs were the handiwork of Pakistan-based militants?

Or have former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s strong criticism of Manmohan Singh’s Pakistan and Kashmir policy and the BJP’s resurgence on the political scene, especially after its recent poll victory in the crucial state of Bihar, made the Indian prime minister extra cautious? Whatever may be the reason, the fact remains that the Indian prime minister has chosen to escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.

It will be tragic if Pakistan and India, having turned away from confrontation, do not give peace and amity a fair chance of succeeding. The leadership of both countries should display a political will to work with each other despite serious differences on some vital issues. Also, there is no need for Pakistan to display desperation at India’s disregard of its overtures.

Sooner or later, New Delhi will realize that Pakistan has made its proposals in earnestness and that they deserve dispassionate consideration. The issues between the two neighbours are not only complex but they also carry with them a heavy burden of history. They can only be tackled by creative and bold diplomatic initiatives which necessarily imply taking of calculated risks.

Defending his controversial nuclear deal with the US in the Indian parliament some months ago, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh emphasized the importance of taking risks in foreign policy and declared: “If there are risks, those are calculated risks; they are worth taking.” A man of his vision and experience should not hesitate to take such risks in dealing with Pakistan. He should keep in mind what Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s most revered national hero after Mahatma Gandhi and its first prime minister, said for such occasions: “Fear builds its phantoms, which are more fearsome than reality itself, and reality, when calmly analysed and its consequences willingly accepted, loses much of its terror.”

The writer is a retired ambassador

Baiting George Bush By Simon Tisdall

HUGO CHAVEZ knows how to wind up the US government. His latest wheeze — selling discounted home heating oil to chilly residents of Massachusetts — follows his offer to help victims of Bush administration bungling over Hurricane Katrina. But the Venezuelan president’s tweaking of Washington noses extends beyond weather-related crises.

Mr Chavez, chief rainmaker of Venezuela’s so-called Bolivarian revolution, was busy the other day persuading Colombia to build a pipeline to its Pacific coast. That could increase Caracas’s oil exports to China at the expense of the US, which depends on Venezuela for roughly 15 per cent of its foreign oil. Earlier this week Mr Chavez celebrated a tractor deal with Iran. He said mischievously that he looked forward to further bilateral “technology transfers”.

Mr Chavez is also using Venezuela’s oil bonanza, fuelled by high world prices, to promote his populist agenda in Washington’s Latin American backyard. Preferential oil deals have been offered to up to 20 countries. And at last month’s Summit of the Americas in Argentina Mr Chavez successfully led opposition to a US-backed regional free trade pact. When Mexico’s president, Vicente Fox, objected, he branded him a “lapdog of American imperialism”.

US discomfiture does not stop there. It claims Venezuela’s arms purchases from Russia and elsewhere are “exporting instability”. Particular concern centres on Mr Chavez’s support for leftwing forces in Colombia, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Bolivia, where Evo Morales, a Chavez disciple, is tipped to win next month’s presidential election.

“Morales is my friend, another great guy and an Indian leader,” Mr Chavez told the Washington Post in September. “D’you want me to support the extreme right? I am a revolutionary. I have to support the leftwing movements in Latin America. We have to change Latin America.”

George Bush, nicknamed “Mr Danger” by Mr Chavez, put it another way after the failed summit: Latin America must choose between a “vision of hope” (represented by the US) and those who sought “to roll back the democratic progress of the past two decades”.

Hyperbole aside, Mr Bush may have a point. The garrulous, hyperactive Mr Chavez is wildly popular with the poor of Venezuela’s urban slums. His anti-American rhetoric has facile appeal in a region ravaged by the discredited “Washington consensus” on neo-liberal reform. But critics say he is an opportunistic showman lacking firm ideological conviction and bent on undemocratic self-aggrandisement.

Venezuela’s opposition parties and media had been browbeaten into impotent subservience, reported Alma Guillermoprieto, a regional expert writing in the New York Review. Particularly pernicious was the use of voting records to deny Chavez opponents public sector jobs and government benefits, she said.

Venezuela was deeply divided and its politics were almost hallucinatory. “In Caracas today it often seems as if there were no issues, only bilious anger or unconditional devotion — or gasping bafflement — all provoked by the president,” Ms Guillermoprieto said.

Love him or hate him, Mr Chavez is impossible to ignore. Thirty years ago the US might have silenced him one way or another, but that time in Latin America has passed. Despite loose talk of coups and assassination, there seems to be no stopping El Presidente — and no end to the baiting of Mr Bush. —Dawn/The Guardian News Service

Political turnaround in Bihar

THE post-election scenario in Bihar is not bright because of two things: too much visibility for the BJP and former chief minister Lalu Prasad Yadav’s non-reconciliation to his defeat. The first expects to occupy more territory. The second fears more exposures — and punishment — if he stands still. Both may continue to exert pressure on Chief Minister Nitish Kumar because they want to be counted.

The BJP wants a mid-term poll and hopes to ride over its internal feuds through the victory in Bihar. Lalu does not mind a mid-term poll but wants first to convince Congress president Sonia Gandhi that Ram Vilas Paswan is not a dalit leader but a pretender who has to be eased out for her party to have meaningful support in the Extremely Backward Class (EBC). For the first time, Lalu does not want the spotlight on himself. He intends using the Congress as a shield to ward off further onslaughts.

Lalu’s defeat was never in doubt, but his rout was. Although the swing against him is less than one per cent, he has lost nearly one fourth of his strength in the state assembly, some 21 seats. When I was in Patna after the third phase of polling, I could see a yearning for a change. People had enough of Lalu and his poor performance. Still, Lalu’s staunchest opponents did not give the Nitish-BJP combination 143 in the 243-member assembly as the tally turned out to be. It seems the undercurrent of anger against Lalu was too strong to be gauged correctly.

Most analysts blame Paswan for lessening Lalu’s votes. This is partly true. Nitish himself, a leader of the backward community Kurmi, organized his support from among the EBC that is primarily Paswan’s base. This chunk of 35 per cent electorate solidly voted against Lalu because he represented the Yadavs who had treated them with contempt. In the past, the EBC did not generally vote because the Yadavs would not allow it to go to the polling booth. Fear stalked its habitations. The election commission, which did a tremendous job, ensured this time that it could exercise the franchise absolutely without fear.

Paswan had also made it clear before election that he did not want to be a party to the ordeal of prolonging Lalu’s 15-year-long misrule. However, the initial mistake is that of the Congress and the Marxists. They should not have insisted on Lalu because of his bad name. But both wanted the support of his Rashtriya Janata Dal in the Lok Sabha to keep the Manmohan Singh government in power. On the other hand, Paswan’s suggestion to have a Muslim chief minister was not outlandish. He wanted to strengthen the secular base in the country. True, he has halved his own seats through his doings. But both he and the CPI, which has stood by him, have proved that they were right in their assessment about the unpopularity of Lalu.

The worst thing which the CPI (M) and the Congress have done is that they have polarized the state to the benefit of the BJP. Riding on the Nitish bandwagon, the BJP has increased its strength in the state assembly. True, Nitish, heading the government, has made it clear that he has nothing to do with the BJP’s philosophy of Hindutva. He has said the same thing during electioneering. But an average person cannot differentiate between the two when he finds them in the same government. BJP leader Uma Bharti says that they won in the name of Ram and roti (bread). The BJP has 55 seats against Nitish’s 88 and added 18 more seats to the February poll tally of 37.

Even the Muslims, tired of Lalu’s promises, have voted for the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), a combination which the BJP has constituted in parliament to become an alternative. Nitish has said that there can be a difference on the basis of ideology. But pluralism and parochialism are the antithesis of each other. The BJP cannot be part of the same government. What message has been given when the deputy chief minister in the Nitish cabinet is the state’s BJP chief?

The combination of Nitish’s Janata Dal (United) and the BJP reminds me of the Janata which was constituted in the wake of Mrs Gandhi’s rout in 1977. The Jana Sangh, the predecessor of the BJP, joined the Janata government and had its two BJP leaders, Atal Behari Vajpayee and L.K. Advani, in the cabinet. The Jana Sangh was dissolved for public consumption but worked as a group within the Janata Party. This group left when told to break its ties with the RSS. My worry is that Nitish may find out one day that the BJP has not stopped working on its Hindutva agenda. With him, the party has attained respectability.

I have no doubt Nitish would put in all his efforts to restore law and order in the state and develop it economically as much as he can stretch the resources. He is a product of the Jayaprakash Narayan movement in the 1970s and its ethos was to effect parivartan (change) in the society. Nitish may not make much headway despite his honest work because the BJP’s eyes are fixed on New Delhi, not Patna. After all Bihar, with 48 Lok Sabha seats, is too big a state to be left to secular pursuits.

At least New Delhi should not make Nitish’s task difficult. One of the central ministers has said that Governor Buta Singh will not be transferred. By not allowing Nitish to form the government in February when his was the largest combine, the governor played a partisan role. The Supreme Court characterized it as “unconstitutional.” How can he continue as the Bihar governor? In fact, he is one of the causes of Lalu’s rout. The governor dissolved a house that was never constituted. He did not even allow the elected legislators to take oath. This angered the people who voted for the NDA with a vengeance.

Patna was once Patliputra, capital of Emperor Ashoka. It was here he renounced violence after winning the war at Kalinga, Orissa, where thousands of people were killed. Victory, Ashoka said, might put up the back of one but it meant destruction. Defeat is an opportunity to improve. Can Lalu Yadav learn a lesson from Ashoka and consider his debacle a chance to renounce the path of crime and corruption? Were he to do so, he would fulfill the dream of Jayaprakash Narayan because Lalu, like Nitish, was JP’s lieutenant. Bihar needs to be pulled out of the morass of poverty and helplessness. Were Lalu to work at cross-purposes, the state would not go ahead with full speed which it badly needs. His statements after the defeat are of little help.

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi