Congress takes Pakistan by
surprise By Ammara Durrani
KARACHI - When Indian High Commissioner to
Pakistan Shiv Shankar Menon held an open house on May 13
at the High Commission in Islamabad, inviting Pakistani
journalists, politicians and other eminent personalities
to join the "excitement" of watching the Indian election
results on television, few had anticipated the outcome
that eventually unfolded. One inside source says Menon
was actually slightly anxious at "daring" to invite the
Pakistanis to such an event on their home ground,
fearing that few would make an appearance.
But
not only was the open house well received and well
covered in the Pakistani media, it proved exciting
enough to see the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) fortunes
take a surprising tumble, and the Congress making a
remarkable comeback after spending years in the
political wilderness. India's Verdict 2004 has proved
far more interesting for Pakistan than expected, of
which its impact on the ongoing Pakistan-India peace
process is foremost.
That Pakistan had been
trying to accommodate the BJP-led government on almost
all levels since the bilateral breakthrough this year
was evident in the fact that until the election results
came, there had been little speculation of the
possibility of Atal Bihari Vajpayee not coming to power
for another term, leaving a question mark on the status
of the peace process. The extent of Pakistani efforts
was most visible in Islamabad's unusual restraint in
response to Vajpayee's often provocative statements at
various election rallies during the last round of
elections, accusing Pakistan of sponsoring "terrorist"
acts to stop Kashmiri voters from going to the polls,
and expressing "caution" that relations could dip as
dramatically as they had improved. On the contrary,
Pakistani Foreign Office spokesman Masood Khan was
quoted as saying that Pakistan had "refrained" from
giving statements on these elections, which had "no
legal basis", because "no utterances should be made to
undermine the spirit of confidence-building and
dialogue".
For its part, the Vajpayee government
portrayed the peace process as a feather in the cap of
"India Shining", which it was sure would bring the BJP
back to power. Thus expectations on both sides of the
border centered on the general expectation of the
dialogue moving forward along the roadmap agreed upon in
Islamabad on January 6, and with familiar faces leading
it on both sides. The unexpected Congress victory,
however, had Islamabad looking toward New Delhi with
some anxiety. Quick to point out that the outgoing prime
minister had earlier come to Islamabad with the mandate
and support of all the political parties to initiate the
peace talks, Pakistani Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan
Jamali kept emphasizing that the change of guard in New
Delhi would not affect the peace process. Employing
similar rhetoric, Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid
Mahmood Kasuri, while visiting the United States for
crucial talks on the nuclear issue last week, allayed
the fear at home that Congress might not be willing to
arrive at a settlement on the Kashmir issue in view of
its "past record".
But while the Pakistani
government has remained conciliatory and upbeat,
broadsheet columnists and television talking heads were
busy last week contemplating the fallout of Verdict 2004
on the peace process. If, they asked, the verdict is a
rejection of the BJP and its policies, could it also
mean a stalling of the process itself with BJP's ouster?
Would the new Congress government press on with the
composite dialogue as envisaged and planned by the BJP,
or would it review the existing mechanisms, thus causing
a delay in progress? On this latter score, many observed
that such a delay may not go down well with Pakistani
President General Pervez Musharraf, who until recently
had not shied away from making his impatience known,
saying India's delay could force Pakistan to rethink and
scale back its own initiatives. More important, though,
was the question whether the Congress would be willing
to go ahead with the peace process on its predecessor's
terms.
Some analysts have pointed out that being
short of a simple majority and by virtue of its weak
coalition status, the Congress may not be able to give
concessions to Pakistan as Vajpayee could, even though
those "concessions" remain debatable. Yet others are of
the opinion that, the Vajpayee initiative
notwithstanding, forces of peace have been unleashed
significantly on the public level on both sides of the
border, which are overtaking typical animosity and
suspicions of the two governments; and that despite
Vajpayee's direct and personal attachment to the peace
process, Congress would be foolish not to tap into the
public desire for peace with Pakistan. Especially not
when Vajpayee had repeatedly linked the necessity for
regional peace with eradication of poverty, and
especially now that Congress has been given a mandate
largely on the basis of economic considerations.
"One wishes to underline the sound pragmatic
judgment of Mr Common Indian," wrote one columnist in
Pakistani daily the News International last week,
"[that] on the question of relations with Pakistan ...
[the] Indian voter is not really concerned with the
niceties of historical discourse on Kashmir. He is
primarily concerned with bijli [electricity],
paani [water] aur sarak [and roads] in his
area." The columnist was of the opinion that the level
of ties is not an issue, and what is certain is that all
governments in India are now sure to go on consciously
denying to Kashmiris the opportunities of exercising the
right of self-determination, even if the next Indian
government acknowledges that Kashmir is an issue to be
decided.
"[The] K Natwar Singh and J N Dixit
team [both former Indian high commissioners to Pakistan]
will happily start talks on Kashmir the next day -
though a Congress-dominated government is sure to do so
in order to achieve what the Simla Accord had set out to
achieve," he wrote, adding: "They are unlikely to drop
that accord as the basis of talks - and all that was
implicit."
Indeed, the Simla Accord of July 1972
- in which both countries agreed to settle all issues by
peaceful means and mutual discussions - has assumed new
significance with the coming of Congress to power in
India, and Pakistani analysts believe that a review of
the peace process - if any - on part of the new
government would entail more references to the accord
and past decisions when Congress was in power, rather
than the Lahore Declaration (1999), the failed Agra
Summit (2001) or the Islamabad Declaration (2004).
Elaborating this point, former Pakistani foreign
secretary Najmuddin A Shaikh wrote in the daily Dawn
last week that from Pakistan's perspective, this change
dictated by a perceived political need should be of
little consequence if it does not involve a difference
in substance. Referring to the roadmap of negotiations,
originally scheduled to kick off Tuesday with talks on
nuclear confidence-building measures (CBMs), he argued
that while a delay in the talks may be possible on
account of the understandable delays in government
formation in New Delhi, it need not be so because this
meeting is at the level of officials.
"On the
grounds of politics, the Congress-led government should,
in fact, be anxious to proceed with this meeting and to
publicize CBMs in the nuclear field as a logical
continuation of the agreement on non-attack on nuclear
facilities concluded between Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir
Bhutto," he wrote, adding: "It is, of course, important
that the forward momentum in Indo-Pakistan relations be
maintained by adhering to the schedule of the meetings
already agreed upon ... What is going to be even more
important, however, is the vision of [Congress
president] Sonia Gandhi and her allies on the substance
of the most important issue - Kashmir ... This, after
all, is the substance of the Simla agreement to which
the Congress party rightly attaches great importance."
That continuation of the composite dialogue
between the two countries as planned is largely seen as
essential for the success of the peace process itself -
given that past attempts were bogged down with
bureaucratic impediments - is also realized by the
pro-peace quarters in India. Writing in the Indian daily
The Hindu immediately after the election results, one
columnist stressed that one of the first diplomatic
tasks of the new government would have to be an
unambiguous message on India's political commitment to
continue the comprehensive dialogue with Pakistan on all
bilateral issues, including Kashmir, and that such a
"credible reassurance" would involve not merely a
commitment to the process but also the principles
embodied in it.
In his latest analysis in the
same paper, that same columnist urged India to carry out
bilateral negotiations as per schedule: "It would be
easy for [Indian Prime Minister Manmohan] Singh to
either delay the talks or merely go through the motions.
Resisting that temptation, Mr Singh should adopt a
positive approach at the talks next week. That would at
once send two important messages. The first, to
Pakistan, would indicate that India will not hold back
from the principles and timelines of engagement set by
the previous government in New Delhi. Second, to the
international community, it would indicate not merely
continuity in India's policy towards Pakistan but an
abiding national commitment to peace and security in the
subcontinent ... The talks next week provide a valuable
opportunity for India to signal its commitment to walk
down that road. It would be a pity if it were to be
wasted."
Interestingly, that is exactly what has
happened. Despite the positive signals emanating from
Islamabad and New Delhi in the wake of Singh being
nominated and sworn in on the weekend as India's new
prime minister, and despite confirmation from both sides
until recently of the talks to be held as per schedule,
the Pakistani press reports that India is postponing the
talks because the government in Delhi is "in
transition". Although Pakistan maintains that this is
not cause for any worry, no new dates have been set for
future negotiations.
These developments occur at
a time when Pakistan is also engaged in very important
nuclear talks with the US. That country's role in the
India-Pakistan peace process has assumed much higher
stakes than in the past, not least because of the United
States' steadily increasing economic interests in India.
Addressing a select audience in Karachi last December,
US academic and South Asian expert Professor Stanley
Wolpert observed that General Motors and General
Electric would play a far more critical role in the
resolution of the Kashmir dispute than US Secretary of
State Colin Powell or Musharraf.
There are calls
within India for the new Congress government to review
its policies vis-a-vis the US in a bid to regain some of
its foreign policy "independence" lost by the Vajpayee
government post-September 11, 2001, particularly on the
question of Iraq and India's relations with Israel. Such
an approach, if adopted, could create some stress in the
India-US relations, which could carry implications for
India-Pakistan relations as well, given Pakistan's
proximity to and near-dependence on the US.
Given such complex external dynamics, Pakistan
now has its hopes pinned to Singh's pledge last week to
continue on the peace path. Carrying it out would create
opportunities for both the countries to strengthen their
own political wills and processes - as opposed to
external influences - for peace, which both agree is the
only way forward.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times
Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
