| |
Haunted by colonial ghosts
By Sultan Shahin
NEW
DELHI - Well-choreographed bilateral meetings between
Indian and Pakistani leaders on the sidelines of the
12th multilateral summit of South Asian heads of
government have led to dramatic developments. Both
countries, which were on the brink of a potentially
nuclear war only last year, have agreed to start
resolving all their disputes, including the vexed issue
of Kashmir, through dialogue starting as early as next
month.
Following a ground-breaking meeting
on Monday between Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari
Vajpayee and Pakistani President General Pervez
Musharraf, their first in over two years, the
two countries have expressed confidence through a joint
declaration issued on Tuesday that "the resumption of
the composite dialogue will lead to peaceful settlement
of all bilateral issues, including Jammu and Kashmir".
The deal includes an assurance by Musharraf "that he
will not permit any territory under Pakistan's control
to be used to support terrorism in any manner".
Cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan into the
Indian part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir is the
main grouse of the Indian side.
The two
countries have already fought four wars in the course of
56 years of independence from British rule. The
Muslim-majority border state of Jammu and Kashmir has
been a bone of contention since 1947 when the British
partitioned India into two states before giving them
independence. Having already fought two wars over
Kashmir, the two almost went to war again in
December 2002 after an attack on the Indian parliament
in New Delhi that India blamed on Pakistani-backed
militants.
But in April 2003, the Indian prime
minister extended a hand of friendship to Pakistan from
a public rally in Srinagar, the summer capital of
Kashmir, launching what the 80-year-old leader said was
a final bid for peace in his lifetime. Since then both
countries have announced a number of confidence-building
measures, including a ceasefire along the Line of
Control in Kashmir, exchange of high commissioners and
resumption of air, rail and road transport services that
India suspended after the attack on its parliament.
Though the
Pakistani president called the Islamabad declaration
historic, and the development does have the potential of
becoming historic, most people in India and Pakistan,
both strategic analysts and common people, remain only
cautiously optimistic. High expectations of
normalization of relations, the desire of people in both
countries, have been belied on several occasions in the
past.
Many questions are being asked. Are
the two governments burying the hatchet only at the
behest of the United States, or have they actually seen
reason? Is Islamabad being reasonable merely because it
has been asked by the US to close down its terror
factories both in the west (for access into Afghanistan)
and in the east (access into India)? Could Vajpayee be
showing reason merely because he needs something to show
for his five-year rule at the polls he will be facing in
a matter of months? Could the leaders actually have
learnt some lessons from the experience of the past 56
years of hostility, as Pakistan's Foreign Minister
Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri claimed in his media briefing on
Tuesday? Kasuri asked the media to remain optimistic as
the two countries may have learnt that wars cannot
resolve their differences.
Perhaps the best cause for optimism
is the fact that these peace moves have come after long
and careful preparation and lengthy behind-the-scenes
negotiations. This is apparent from the wording of the
well-crafted declaration. As both the foreign ministers
of India and Pakistan largely confined themselves to
referring to this declaration in response to most
questions, it would be worthwhile to look at the text of
the declaration itself:
"Both leaders [Vajpayee and
Musharraf] welcomed the recent steps towards
normalization of relations between the two countries and
expressed the hope that the positive trends set by the
CBMs [confidence-building measures] would be
consolidated. Prime Minister Vajpayee said that in order
to take forward and sustain the dialogue process,
violence, hostility and terrorism must be prevented.
President Musharraf reassured Prime Minister Vajpayee
that he will not permit any territory under Pakistan's
control to be used to support terrorism in any manner.
President Musharraf emphasized that a sustained and
productive dialogue addressing all issues would lead to
positive results.
"To carry the process of
normalization forward the president of Pakistan and the
prime minister of India agreed to commence the process
of the composite dialogue in February 2004. The two
leaders are confident that the resumption of the
composite dialogue will lead to peaceful settlement of
all bilateral issues, including Jammu and Kashmir, to
the satisfaction of both sides. The two leaders agreed
that constructive dialogue would promote progress
towards the common objective of peace, security and
economic development for our peoples and for future
generations."
It is a measure of the seriousness
of purpose displayed by both countries that unlike the
last occasion that the two leaders met at Agra in India
two-and-a-half years ago, they both refrained from
conducting negotiations through the media. In Islamabad
the media was kept at a distance. This was partly
ensured by the negotiations being conducted by the
low-key but high-powered Brajesh Mishra, the Indian
prime minister's national security adviser. At his own
press conference along with External Affairs Minister
Yashwant Sinha, Mishra emphasized that there were no
winners or losers at Islamabad, a point also stressed
later by the Pakistani foreign minister, Khursheed
Kasuri.
On his part, the media-savvy
Musharraf, too, seemed to have learnt his lessons well.
Unlike Agra, he used very measured words to answer
questions in his 90-minute interaction with the media on
Tuesday. He disclosed only what would add to the
atmospherics of bonhomie prevailing since the South
Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)
summit began at the weekend. For instance, he pointed
out that Vajpayee asked him to take care of himself from
terrorists when the latter called to congratulate him on
the success of the SAARC summit. "This morning I
received a call from him. He wished me protection [from
terrorists] and I wished him a long life. We also
congratulated each other on the successful joint
statement," Musharraf said. Asked whether he feared more
threats to his life on account of the latest "deal" with
India, Musharraf said that he had nine lives and he had
not "consumed" all of them. Two assassination attempts
have been made against the leader in the past three
weeks.
The million-dollar question,
however, is: will the ceasefire on the Line of Control
(LoC) that divides the Indian and Pakistani-administered
sections of Kashmir translate into peace in the valley?
Musharraf commented: "We cannot guarantee a ceasefire in
Kashmir. But I think my words carry weight and they
[Kashmiris] can consider my proposals."
He said
that the India-Pakistan joint statement was a victory
for the people of the region. "Moderates of the region
are victors," he said, adding that extremists from both
sides of the border may try to sabotage the process.
"This is a good beginning. We will move forward with
hard work, sincerity," he said. The need was not to
touch on divergences. "The time has come to leave the
old divergences [behind]." Asked why India should
believe his assurance on dealing with terrorism, he
said: "I only say what I mean." He denied that India and
Pakistan had reached any "secret deal". He was all
praise for the statesmanship displayed by Vajpayee in
making the agreement possible.
Musharraf
was not too far off the mark in saying that the joint
declaration was a victory for moderation and defeat for
hardliners. But perhaps one possible guarantee of
success for this venture is that the main Pakistani
hardliners have so kept quiet. Qazi Hussain Ahmad, the
chief of the Jamaat-e-Islami, for instance, who was in
the forefront of protest when Vajpayee last visited
Pakistan to start a peace process with the then prime
minter Nawaz Sharif in 1998, was seen quietly listening
to the Indian leader speak of the need for showing
wisdom in the quest for peace and prosperity for the
South Asian sub-continent.
Indeed, the leader of the grouping
of six religious parties in the Pakistani parliament,
Maulana Fazlul Haq, visited India earlier and met
Vajpayee as well as the latter's hardline colleagues in
the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh. Haq was indeed heard
taking credit for the present rapprochement, saying that
he had persuaded Vajpayee to visit Pakistan for the
SAARC summit.
What also augurs well is that
Indian hardliners, too, are keeping their thoughts to
themselves, at least so far. In fact, the ruling
Bharatiya Janata Party intends to use the success at
Islamabad as a campaign issue in the forthcoming
elections, which are being advanced by several months
from the end of the year to take advantage of the
present feel-good factor in India, partly on account of
the ceasefire along the LoC and reduced terror attacks
in Kashmir.
The Indian media have by and large
welcomed the formal start of a peace process, with most
observers being cautiously optimistic. One of the most
highly respected newspapers among the national dailies,
The Hindu, for instance, commented: "New Delhi will also
need time to gauge whether Islamabad will persist with
its efforts to contain cross-border terrorism. Both
sides will need to exercise patience to ensure that the
process of engagement does not stall since the
frustration generated by failure will further erode the
prospects of full normalization. India will continue to
be cautious about dealing with a Pakistani establishment
that is ultimately controlled by General Musharraf. It
will not be in a hurry to conclude that the
military-dominated Pakistani establishment has made an
irreversible strategic decision in favor of friendship,
cooperation and amity."
Indian observers have been
carefully watching recent developments in Pakistan and
have taken heart from the changed international scenario
since September 11, 2001. The Hindu continues: "The
significance of recent developments on the other side of
the border must not be underestimated. The two attempts
to assassinate General Musharraf brought home to the
Pakistani leadership the dangers inherent in its
sponsorship of jihadi elements. Pakistan is under
intense international scrutiny because of its long
association with the jihadi movement and because of the
latest revelations about its role in clandestine nuclear
proliferation [with Iran]. The fear of international
isolation could combine forces with the prospect of
enhanced economic cooperation within the SAARC framework
to move Pakistani policy further in a positive
direction. That the leaders of the religious parties did
not hesitate to interact with Prime Minister Vajpayee
and his delegation perhaps indicates that most
components of Pakistan's political spectrum have decided
to support the process of engagement and sensible,
mature dialogue with India."
Some
hardline strategic analysts in India, however, claim
that the bonhomie will not last the media hype generated
under the influence of the government. Noted analyst
Brahma Chellaney, for instance, claimed in a television
discussion that Vajpayee had made a 180 degree turn in
India's position on Kashmir without gaining anything in
return. He was referring to India having merely agreed
to talk about the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan along
with other issues. He expressed the hope that the rest
of the media will see his point once the euphoria is
over and better sense prevails.
While the
mainstream Pakistani media and even opposition have
welcomed the move, Kashmiri politicians, particularly
militants, are understandably upset. Amanullah Khan, the
chief of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Movement, the
oldest such body demanding independence for Kashmir from
both India and Pakistan, called it a betrayal on the
part of Musharraf and referred to what he called a 180
degree turn that the Pakistan president had made in
abandoning the cause of Kashmir.
Other
Pakistan hardliners have hit out at the government for
pushing the "core" issue of Kashmir to the "sidelines"
and warned that prolonging the imbroglio could lead to
another conflict between the two countries. They
underlined the need for inclusion of Kashmiris in the
dialogue process. Former prime minister of
Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, Sardar Qayyum, said that
sidelining Kashmir or making cultural agreements could
not reduce tension between India and Pakistan and warned
that if it was not addressed and resolved quickly, the
situation could result in another Indian-Pakistan war.
Qayyum also said that the LoC could not be accepted as
the permanent border. "Unnecessary hopes were being
attached to the SAARC summit and one should not ignore
ground realities," he said in an interview to the Urdu
daily Nawai Waqt.
Hizbul Mujahideen chief and
chairman of the Muttahida Jihad Council, Syed
Salahuddin, hit out at the SAARC forum, saying that it
had ignored ground realities and made attempts to create
an "unrealistic conducive atmosphere through cosmetic
measures". Referring to the meeting between Musharraf
and Vajpayee, Salahuddin said: "All this is happening in
a controlled, artificial atmosphere under immense
pressure and in the guise of secrecy. The talk of peace
and initiatives for cooperation are all fine but what is
their relevance to the ground realities. The convening
of the SAARC conference here is a welcome sign, but the
talk of economic cooperation and putting the security
[on top] proves the gap between fiction and reality,"
the Pakistan-based leader said.
According
to a report in Pakistan's largest-circulated Urdu daily,
Jang, on the issue of Kashmir, the government also came
under fire from Jaamat-e-Islami chief Qazi Hussain
Ahmad. Qazi said that the Pakistani leadership was
"conceding defeat" on the Kashmir issue under "US
pressure". He also said that a Kashmir solidarity day
would be observed on February 5 to "foil ongoing
conspiracies against the Kashmiri freedom struggle".
Qazi said that Pakistan was "completely ignoring" the
Kashmir issue and the matter would be raised in
parliament, according to a report in Jang.
The
president of Pakistan-administered Kashmir,
Major-General Sardar Anwar, Prime Minister Sardar
Sikandar and opposition leader Barrister Sultan Mehmood,
however, welcomed the India-Pakistan initiative and said
that it was a significant move towards resolving all
outstanding issues.
As Indian and Pakistani officials
return to their back rooms to quietly prepare for the
hard bargaining sessions that will continue for the next
several months, the two countries would do well to try
and keep up the heartening atmosphere generated by the
peace moves. Pakistan would do best to heed Vajpayee's
advice: India, Pakistan and Bangladesh celebrate jointly
the 150th anniversary of a united India's first freedom
struggle against the British in 1857. In his address at
Islamabad, Vajpayee seemed to be emphasizing the need to
heed history. "History can remind us, guide us, teach us
or warn us," he said. "It should not shackle us. We have
to look forward now, with a collective approach in
mind."
While referring to the complex and
troubled colonial legacy of the region, Vajpayee sought
to remind his counterparts from all the seven SAARC
countries - India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal,
Sri Lanka and the Maldives - that there exists a common
legacy of joint struggles and aspirations among them.
Nothing can better illustrate this
than the first war of independence waged in 1857. The
Hindu kings and queens that waged this war decided
unanimously and unilaterally that they would
re-establish the last Muslim ruler Bahadur Shah Zafar as
their emperor. Zafar was virtually a British prisoner in
Delhi's Red Fort at the time.
The first
war of independence waged jointly by Hindu kings and
their Hindu-Muslim subjects makes it clear that the
final legacy of about seven centuries of Muslim rule in
India was not any communal bitterness between the two
major communities of the region. Obviously, the
bitterness that developed was the handiwork of the
British colonialists who embarked on their
divide-and-rule policy with even greater zeal after
1857. They received the willing cooperation of both
Hindu and Muslim fundamentalists who are still bent on
dividing the two communities further and who oppose any
rapprochement, either within India or in the larger
South Asian region. It is time these elements were
isolated, wherever they exist, and the region as a whole
allowed to work towards administering a healing touch to
the wounds inflicted by two centuries of colonial rule
and its aftermath.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online
Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
