Indo-Pakistan realities

By Pran Chopra

PAKISTAN'S CHIEF Executive, General Pervez Musharraf, has complimented the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, for inviting him for talks, and in an interview with the BBC he described the invitation as an act of ``statesmanship'', and of ``courage and boldness''. His reason: the invitation amounts to ``accepting reality'' in addressing an issue that has ``bedeviled relations between the two countries'', and he has expressed ``cautious optimism'' about the outcome.

This is all to the good. The talks, due later this month or early the next, will have little chance of bearing fruit unless approached with more optimism than scepticism, and on the basis of ``reality'', not wild demands and expectations. In that spirit some more realities also need to be listed for the attention of both sides at the summit. Otherwise the mists of avoidable controversies and suspicion will gather again as they have at some earlier summit meetings between the two countries.

It is an obvious reality that the future of Jammu and Kashmir is central to relations between India and Pakistan. There is no need for India to resist that reality. Therefore there should be no pointless dispute over whether the agenda for the coming talks should be ``Kashmir and other issues'' or ``other issues and Kashmir''. A very suitable agenda encompassing the one and the others was crafted very thoughtfully for and at the Lahore meeting between Mr. Vajpayee and Mr. Nawaz Sharif, and it was warmly endorsed by both leaders.

If Gen. Musharraf wants to suggest changes in the architecture of that agenda he should frankly come up with them and they should receive very serious consideration. But no less central to relations between any two countries is the reality that at an agreement between any two nations cannot be disowned by either on the ground that it has changed its leaders. An agreement between countries is viable only in the measure that both abide by it. Failure by either to do so can only discourage future agreements. Pakistan's record on that leaves much to be desired.

The next reality follows from the Shimla Agreement, which binds both countries to bilateralism unless they mutually agree on an alternative. It does not augur well that on the eve of the summit Gen. Musharraf, in an interview with the Russian newspaper, the Izvestia, has sought the intervention of a third party, and of Russia at that. Despite Moscow's possible interest in Pakistan's help in resolving some of Russia's problems with its Muslim population (although Pakistan is more the cause of that problem than a cure for it), it will not encourage initiatives which would be unacceptable to India; and even if it did, that would not cut any ice with India. Even less will India accept any tripartatism between itself, Pakistan, and ``representatives of the people of Kashmir'', whoever the claimants to that title might be.

Not only has Pakistan been wasting its breath in trying to lift the All-Party Hurriyat Conference to that level; it has also impaired the useful role that the APHC could have played at this juncture. True it is, and sad, that at this very juncture New Delhi, particularly the national media, misread the APHC. Instead of listening to the composite voice of the APHC as heard in the resolution adopted by its Executive on April 27, they listened only to the histrionics displayed by its chairman, Mr. Abdul Ghani Bhat, in releasing the resolution, and some of them failed to notice even the existence of a resolution though in it the Hurriyat Conference had tried to distance itself from the role sought to be conferred on it by Pakistan. But be that as it may, there is not going to be a third chair at the summit.

The third reality is the Line of Control (LoC). Gen. Musharraf made an oblique reference to it the other day, which some would find to be tantalising, including the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Dr. Faroq Abdullah, who has openly advocated that the Line be made a permanent part of the Indo-Pakistan border. Asked for his comments on that, he said he would cross that bridge when he came to it. But it is worth recalling how beguiling that bridge can be without carefully building an approach road to it first.

After the Chinese attack on India in 1962, there were five rounds of talks between the voluble Z.A. Bhutto, at that time the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, and our own smiling sphinx, Swaran Singh. I had watched the unfolding of that drama round after round. Prior to one of the rounds, in Karachi, it had been rumoured that an agreement on Kashmir might be reached by converting the LoC into an international border with some agreed modifications. Therefore great excitement was aroused when we saw maps being ferried into the room in which the two Foreign Ministers were talking.

But that bubble subsided as soon as it became known that Bhutto had demanded a ``modification'' which would leave one or two districts of Jammu on the Indian side and all the rest of the State with Pakistan. India then countered with a modification which would partition the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) rather than Jammu and Kashmir.

That was 40 years ago. Since then the LoC has been sanctified thrice, first in ink in the Shimla Agreement and the Lahore documents, and then in blood on the heights of Kargil. Therefore scope for anything like a big bargain over ``modifications'' is virtually nill. At the same time, there is the abiding reality that neither India nor Pakistan can drive the other out of the part of the State controlled by it. Each side has to reconcile itself to this reality, and concentrate on resolving its problems on its side of the state to the best if its ability.

For this reason, if for none other, each country will have to review how much authority it can devolve on those elected to authority on its side of the Line, and how much scope it can give to its own people to build such relations with the people on the other side as may be consistent with overall security and stability. Call it autonomy or something else, the issue will now be on any table, no matter how many sides it might have.

Two further realities stand out against this background. The first is that however Pakistan might pretend otherwise, it is clearly aiding and abetting terrorist forays into the Indian side. India will have to counter these with all its resolve, whatever that might do to any prospects there might be for the two countries to get to that bridge.

But potentially the most important development has been panchayat elections in the Jammu region, which have brought entirely new actors into the political arena who also have the proven mandate of the people. Despite appeals by the APHC for a boycott of the elections, the voter participation exceeded 60 and 70 per cent in most constituencies, including those in the Muslim-majority western districts where terrorists from across the Line and from Pakistan had succeeded in establishing strong bases among the local population. A large proportion of those elected are people who are younger, more educated, and more interested in development and careers than in the State's traditional politics of theology.

An explanation often heard for the high turnout is the the APHC does not have much influence in these district and the militants who have some are indifferent to things like elections. That may be, but the turnout shows that where people get a chance to vote they do so enthusiastically and those who get elected are a better reflection of what the people want than outdated politicians can be. There nothing would clean the slate better than effective panchayat elections in the other regions also. Tight security will be needed for holding them in the Valley, but any security provided for enabling people to exercise their right to vote within the limits of law would be politically as well as morally justified, much more than attempts by any elements to deny people their right to vote. It may not be a perfect election but will throw up candidates more mandated to speak on behalf of the people.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Reconstructing Kutch
Next     : The UGC - behind the times?