| BUS AS
CONDUCTOR by J.N. DIXIT appeared in the Telegraph on March 22, 1999 Of the political gestures which characterised Atal Behari Vajpayee’s dramatic bus ride to the Wagah-Attari border and visit to Lahore, the one with the greatest impact was his visiting the Minar e Pakistan in Lahore. The minar commemorates the Muslim League’s passing of the Lahore resolution demanding the creation of Pakistan. Some members of his delegation advised against visiting the minar saying it would endorse the two nation theory and the partition. Vajpayee’s response: “Who am I to give the seal of approval to the existence of Pakistan? It is a self evident reality.” This gesture should put at rest profound apprehensions Pakistanis have about India harbouring ambitions to reabsorb Pakistan. In a public opinion poll of India’s metropolises about Vajpayee’s diplomatic initiative, 76 per cent felt Vajpayee’s initiative would lead to better all round relations with Pakistan, 81 per cent felt that if Nawaz Sharif came to India he would get a warmer welcome than Vajpayee did in Pakistan. Ninety per cent supported mutually beneficial trade and economic relations, 52 per cent felt an economically superior India should be more cooperative and helpful towards Pakistan. A number of factors have qualitatively changed the political and strategic circumstances of the two countries in a manner conducive to both taking a positive and constructive approach. First and foremost, public opinion in both countries is tired of the state of mutual hostilities and wants the possibility of cooperation explored. Second, regardless of their public postures, Sharif and Vajpayee seem willing to move Indo-Pakistani relations out of the rut of mutual antagonism. Third, there are no superpowers or regional powers whom India and Pakistan can play off against each other to safeguard perceived interests on issues like Kashmir or military capacities. External intrusive equalisers are no longer available. The only caveat: the cosmetic initiatives of February 20 should not be at variance with substantive attitudes on issues at discussion, nor should they ignore ground realities beyond a point. Noting ground realities should be the preliminary benchmark for assessing the visit. Pakistan affirmed its uncompromising negotiating stance on Kashmir the fortnight before Vajpayee reached Wagah. Kashmir Day was observed in Pakistan with the usual aggressive rhetoric. The foreign minister, Sartaj Aziz, and the president, Rafiq Ahmed Tarar, made statements up to February 18 emphasising that Indo-Pakistani discussions and dialogues can be relevant only if India agrees to a compromise on Kashmir within the framework of Pakistani demands. Between February 19-21, violence in Jammu and Kashmir claimed 30 to 35 lives. Pakistan’s claims it has nothing to do with this terrorist violence, and the analysis by certain sections of the Indian government that such incidents are engineered by the Inter-Services Intelligence and the armed forces over whom Sharif has no control, are spurious and incorrect. Tension has been heightened whenever there have been meetings between the prime ministers, especially since 1989. Pakistan’s political and military establishments orchestrate this to create an atmosphere focussed on Kashmir during such negotiations. Due to this backdrop Vajpayee precisely defined his mindset and his assessment of possibilities by saying he was going to Pakistan with mixed feelings, that he did not have too many expectations. Any euphoria was media generated. Attitudes and policy orientations found accurate expressions in the Lahore declaration and memorandum of understanding. The declaration’s main points were that both sides would arrange for strategic restraints in their nuclear and missile capacities so as to avoid accidental nuclear confrontation. It was also agreed meaningful discussions would be held to put in place additional confidence building measures to ensure stability and mutual security. Significantly there was no forward movement on signing a no first use or no war agreement. Pakistan was unwilling to extend the existing Indo-Pakistani agreement on not attacking nuclear installations to cover major population centres and centres of economic activity. There was no move to deal with the Kashmir issue on the basis of compromise. Official statements by both sides affirmed static negotiating stances on Kashmir even before the visit. The Lahore declaration only says the two prime ministers will intensify discussions on Kashmir. That is neither here nor there. The agreement not to interfere in each country’s internal affairs is not new. It has been repeated ad infinitum from the Tashkent declaration onward. India should note the nuances of the commitment. Pakistan does not consider Jammu and Kashmir a part of India. When it commits itself not to interfere in the internal affairs of India, this promise does not cover Jammu and Kashmir. There is nothing specific in the declaration about updating and implementing the tentative agreements that exist on Siachen, Sir creek and Wular barrage. There are general declarations of intent to expand trade within the framework of the World Trade Organization agreement and improve people to people contacts. The memorandum signed by the two foreign secretaries elaborates on the political decisions stated in the Lahore declaration. Mostly it is a repetition of the concepts included in statements issued at the end of meetings between Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto, P.V. Narasimha Rao and Sharif, I.K. Gujral and Sharif. The memorandum has new and possibly positive elements. For example, the two sides agree to consult each other on security concepts and nuclear doctrines, put in place conflict avoiding confidence building measures in the nuclear and conventional fields, give advance notification to each other about missile tests and sign an agreement on this and take national measures to reduce risks of accidental and unauthorised use of nuclear weapons. Significantly, both sides have undertaken to abide by the moratorium on conducting further nuclear tests while retaining the option if vital security interests are involved. These are constructive agreements to ensure regional stability in the context of the nuclear weaponisation and missile capacities of India and Pakistan. What then were the achievements of this important meeting between the heads of government of India and Pakistan? What are the prospects? The visit was an important exercise in educating public opinion about the desirability of both countries rationally resolving problems to bring about normalcy and stability in the region, allowing both countries to concentrate on the economic well being of their peoples. Sharif and Vajpayee, engaging in a direct dialogue, affirmed the capacity and, more important, the willingness of the two governments to engage in bilateral discussions to resolve long standing problems. This was a message to the international community that while their goodwill is welcome, their direct intervention or mediation is not necessary — though Pakistan is still unaverse to third party mediation. The prime ministerial exchange will give political impetus to official level discussions. Most important, the agreements on strategic restraints on nuclear and missile capacities and transparency about missile flights and tests confirm that India and Pakistan are mature and responsible countries, conscious of the need to manage nuclear and missile weaponisation. However tentative, these could contribute to the process of normalisation and cooperation between India and Pakistan over time. Whether the prime ministerial exchanges have laid foundations for concrete steps to achieve these objectives will only crystallise in subsequent foreign secretary and official level discussions. Euphoric talk of the visit resulting in a major breakthrough need not have been there. The specific results were as expected and anticipated. While speculating on prospects of Indo-Pakistani relations following this latest initiative, one would say having hopes is both desirable and legitimate, but predicating such efforts on illusions and rejecting reality will be counterproductive. |