Why Musharraf called
Vajpayee By Siddharth Srivastava
NEW DELHI - This is one achievement of the
Bharatiya Janata Party-led government that need not be
undone - shooting off one's mouth on Indian-Pakistan
relations that may hamper the process kick-started by
former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The first
two weeks of the Congress-led Manmohan Singh government
have witnessed this precise pitfall - too many people
talking about too many subjects related to the two
neighbors, including the issue that needles Pakistan the
most, Kashmir.
Pakistani President General
Pervez Musharraf on Monday took the unprecedented step
of calling up Vajpayee, and in a 15-minute conversation
urged him to remain involved in guiding relations
between the two countries. This move surely could not
have gone down too well with the current establishment
headed by the chairman of the ruling United Progressive
Alliance (UPA) and president of the Congress Party,
Sonia Gandhi.
It all began well for the Manmohan
Singh government, with mandatory phone calls from across
the border, including Musharraf's, congratulating him as
well as Sonia. An invitation was also extended to Sonia
to visit Pakistan as the next big symbolic act of
friendship between the two countries, after the
Vajpayee-Musharraf handshake in Islamabad last January -
all within protocol and an acceptance of the fact that
there are no dual centers of power in Delhi, just one,
which is Sonia. The Manmohan visit could follow where
the nitty-gritty of alliances and pacts can be further
ironed out and a comfort zone of communication, as with
the last government, established.
The problems
started when new External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh
in an interview last week chose to talk about Kashmir to
the media in terms not very palatable to Pakistan. Singh
said his usual bit about downplaying Vajpayee's
achievements in foreign policy and laying credit for the
current entente on the framework established by
Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister. This was
expected. Singh also talked about the importance of the
Non Aligned Movement and of India following an
independent foreign policy rather than being linked too
closely with the United States, including his
displeasure with the Vajpayee government's support to
the National Missile Defense program. This too was along
expected lines.
What raised the hackles of
Pakistan was Singh's declaration that India and Pakistan
should follow the Sino-India model in foreign relations,
wherein border disputes have been put aside to move
forward in other areas. "I tell our Pakistan friends you
are very friendly with China, why don't you follow their
example? They put the border [problem] aside. Why are
you harping on Kashmir and blocking everything? Let us
put Kashmir aside; it doesn't disappear, but let us get
on with everything else."
What has followed is a
war of words and a hardening of stance harking back to
the pre-peace-process days. Musharraf criticized Natwar
Singh in an interview and impressed on the centrality of
Kashmir in all talks between India and Pakistan.
When reminded of Singh's interview, in which he
also said that the July 1972 Simla Agreement would form
the "bedrock" of India-Pakistan relations, Musharraf
said: "Well, I believe I am a very pragmatic person. I
believe in ground realities. Every agreement is
interpreted differently by different people and
different governments. If he [Natwar Singh] means that
there will be no movement or a status quo decision,
well, I beg to totally differ with him. That is not the
solution. If the Line of Control [separating the
Pakistani and Indian-administered sections of Kashmir]
is to be made permanent and that is all, this is not the
solution. If he means we will go by the Simla Agreement,
then I don't agree with him. But if he means that we
need to address the Kashmir issue and solve it through
dialogue, then we will follow the Simla Agreement," he
was quoted by the Daily Times as saying.
Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri has
reiterated much of what Musharraf said. Natwar Singh
further complicated matters by telling reporters that
Musharraf "should take the advice of his foreign
minister" before commenting on relations with India.
Indian Foreign Secretary Shashank did nothing to douse
the fire when he said in a statement that Pakistan was
deliberately trying to get in the way of India-Pakistan
dialogue and used words such as "menace of terrorism"
that have not been part of either nation's lexicon in
the past few months.
To invite further trouble,
new union Home Minister Shivraj Patil deviated from
official policy to condemn Pakistan's recent testing of
a Ghauri missile as "escalating the arms race". Patil is
obviously not familiar with the Indian government's
long-standing policy of not criticizing Islamabad for
testing its missiles. In April 1999, Jaswant Singh, who
was foreign minister then, reacted to the testing of a
Ghauri missile by saying: "There is no arms race, there
is no danger." In October 2002, after Pakistan tested
the Shaheen-I, Yashwant Sinha said: "They are a
sovereign country, they have tested their missiles, good
luck to them." After the May 25, 2002, Ghauri test,
Nirupama Rao, who was the Foreign Ministry spokesperson
at the time, said: "We do not take it seriously ... we
are not perturbed. It is part of the stocks,
clandestinely procured by Pakistan, and aimed at
addressing a domestic audience." Vajpayee also said: "We
don't take the test-firing of missiles by Pakistan
seriously."
Observers in India feel that the
country has erred in speaking openly about issues that
need to be part of the backroom negotiations process. It
vitiates an atmosphere of camaraderie that has extended
to the grassroots level. While the damage is not
irretrievable, it is an indication to the new
dispensation about the delicate nature of relations
between the two countries, where every nuance is used
and misused by vested interests. While Natwar and the
Foreign Ministry should be forgiven for their current
gaffes, it may not be a bad idea to look back and
understand the dexterity displayed by the Vajpayee
government that has brought relations between the two
countries thus far.
Leeway has to be given to
Musharraf, given the threats that he faces from
extremist elements within Pakistan keen to derail the
talks. Any words that sound like a compromise on Kashmir
are sure fodder for the fundamentalists to gun for the
president. As indicated by Musharraf himself, elements
within the Pakistani army plotted to assassinate him. It
has to be realized that Musharraf remains the best bet
for a reasonable and continued dialogue process.
The media, always keen to play up any rhetoric,
should be spoken to in general terms while the
specialists thrash out the details, with the new dates
for talks likely to be decided soon. The Congress Party
has been out of power for almost a decade now. It is an
inviting prospect to be the center of all attention once
more. There are bound to be initial false starts, but it
is important to crank the engine in place fast, or else
there will be more calls to Vajpayee from Musharraf, if
he is still around.
Siddharth
Srivastava is a New Delhi-based journalist.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
