Manmohan and Musharraf make
nice By Siddharth Srivastava
NEW DELHI - Previous meetings of the heads of
government of India and Pakistan often have been marked
and marred by acrimony, a war of words, harping by
Pakistan on Kashmir (called the "K-word" by the Indian
media) and harping by India on cross-border terrorism in
the form of rising infiltration. Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh and Pakistani President General Pervez
Musharraf met in New York on Friday, on the sidelines of
the United Nations General Assembly session. It was
their first meeting since Manmohan took charge, at a
place (the US), a forum (the UN) and with an opportunity
(large media exposure) that the two leaders could have
used to score every international brownie point to
maximum effect.
Yet the
hour-long one-to-one meeting without aides,
as well as their speeches and other interactions, including
with the media, couldn't have gone off
on a more pleasant note. Manmohan, after his appointment with
Musharraf, had to clarify that he did indeed raise
the issue of cross-border terrorism (which did not
form part of the joint statement released), eclipsed as
the occasion was by other weighty issues such as
the economic benefits the two countries can derive through
an agreement on a gas pipeline that would run from
Iran through Pakistan to India. The atmosphere was one
of bonhomie in which the two leaders praised each other
and exchanged Urdu poetry and paintings. Pakistan's cash-strapped
economy stands to net US$500 million
to $600 million as annual pipeline transit fees,
while India will be saved the huge expense of undersea
construction of the gas pipeline.
As was expected,
Musharraf in the course of the week in New York
did issue warnings to India - but they were not in the
form of threats of missiles, militants, nuclear bombs
raining down; nor did he denounce what Pakistan calls
a dismal human-rights record in the Indian part of Kashmir,
as has been the case in the past. He did, however,
assail India's growing outsourcing industry, in which
he said the Pakistanis could do better, given their
knowledge of the English language. It is said that Musharraf
is a master at getting his timing right (a phrase
derived from cricket, given the craze for the game
in this part of the world) for maximum effect. Well,
there was no better place to mention Pakistan's competence
than in the United States, where the outsourcing story
begins. And no better way to attract Pakistan's youth to
more mainstream learning, rather than the dreaded
madrassas (seminaries) with their fundamentalist
leanings, to take on the young Indian back-end industry.
As Prashant Bharwaj, a manager with a prominent
call center in Mumbai, said: "The management of my
company has asked for a study of the potential that
Pakistan has to attract back-end operations for MNCs
[multi-national corporations]. It is a cause for worry,
as costs in Pakistan can be even lower than in India,
with [Pakistan having] a sizable population fluent in
English.''
Not too be outdone, Manmohan did
his bit to highlight India's need for foreign
direct investment (FDI) to the tune of $50 billion over
the next 10 years in his address to corporate honchos at
the New York Stock Exchange, an address highlighted
because of the left-wing parties, key coalition partners of the
ruling Congress Party, and the left's opposition to all
such moves. Manmohan also seemed pleased with his
engagement with the Pakistani general, and told newsmen
that there was an "easy flow of conversation and never a
dull moment". He said Musharraf spoke with great
sincerity and told him he had been grossly
misrepresented and wrongly seen as a unifocal person
(interested only in talking about Kashmir). "He wants
across-the-board progress on issues and I endorsed
that," Singh said, indicating that the two sides did
not want to abide by a strict timetable to sort out the
sticking points.
Indeed, it is apparent
that relations between India and Pakistan have improved
to levels that appear to display a clear change in
mindsets. It is no longer a superficial bonhomie reflected
in the slew of confidence-building measures, dismissed
by many observers as mere gloss that would fade after
one terrorist attack or the usual practice of one
country making a convenient political scapegoat by the
other. There were structural problems in the
relationship between the two warring neighbors, the
experts said. From the Pakistani point of view, the army
had a vested interest in continuing to bleed India by
promoting terrorism, as it ensured its predominance in
Pakistani society as well as a flow of unaccounted
funds. India, on the other hand, could not but be
inflexible about Kashmir as the Indian electorate would
not forgive any compromise, the observers said.
But matters are progressing quite to the
contrary. India has for the first time agreed that
Kashmir is a problem and is willing to talk to Pakistan
about it. Pakistan, on the other hand, is showing
willingness to accommodate Indian wishes by sticking to
the format of the talks being strictly bilateral (even
when the two leaders met in US), as well as proceeding
on other matters vital to the interests of the two
countries in their composite dialogue process. There
seem to be calculated leaks planted in the media, one in
Time magazine that India is willing to negotiate the
Line of Control (that separates the two countries along
Kashmir) and the other in the Pakistan daily, The News,
that India could withdraw its troops from the extremely
hazardous and tough deployment at the Siachen Glacier
and count on Pakistan troops not infringing the border.
The question is, why has the peace process
gathered momentum to reach the level that it has at this
moment? The answer lies in the way history is going to
be written, something of which the leaders of both the
countries seem acutely aware.
From the Indian point of view, Manmohan's
Congress government is under immense pressure to bring to
fruition the peace process initiated by former prime
minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of the Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP) last January - the one major achievement of the previous
administration. In fact, the exit of Vajpayee in the
elections could be a blessing in disguise for the peace
process as it puts an added pressure on the Manmohan
government, acutely aware of the judgment of history:
did Manmohan have the vision to carry forward the good
work initiated by Vajpayee, or did he not?
By
all indications, Manmohan seems to be emerging as his
own man. He has a loyal and competent team in place and
his instruction to them is to "think outside of the
box", which was also the advice that Vajpayee proffered
Manmohan before his US trip - do not take the beaten path.
One indication of such an approach is that for the first
time since 1948, Pakistani journalists have been allowed
to visit Indian Kashmir to take a first-hand view of the
situation. It is also becoming apparent that Manmohan
enjoys the considerable confidence of Congress party
president Sonia Gandhi, and he has a mind of his own as
reflected in the slow but definite sidelining of the
foreign ministry under Natwar Singh, as Manmohan begins
to take charge. Vajpayee, too, pretty much ran foreign
policy on his own.
From Pakistan's point of
view, Musharraf also seems to be driven a bit by the way
he is going to be portrayed in future. Now that he has
not only consolidated his position within the army but
also destroyed all political opposition, he has the
liberty to take a larger, longer-term view of issues,
including of himself and his role in history. Either he
could be recorded in history as yet another Pakistani
general who thrived and stuck to a rabidly anti-India
and by default pro-army, pro-fundamentalist approach for
his own survival - or a leader who brought about change.
Musharraf seems to be fighting to climb the latter
ladder, though it is not easy given the vested interests
that flourish and benefit from India-Pakistan tension
and conflict. This time around, however, there is the
added promise of economic gains and prosperity flowing
from healthy relations with India, and Musharraf has
latched onto this vision, which is likely to create a
powerful constituency in his country for peace as well.
Clearly, the two countries have begun to fight
a different war - a battle for business interests that
can benefit both or where both can compete as two
economic powerhouses, India as one that has already
been acknowledged globally and Pakistan as one yet to
make its mark. Manmohan's UN speech focused more on
India's interest in procuring a Security Council seat, as
well as a veiled attack on the US "preemptive" attack
on Iraq and support for UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.
At this General Assembly, Musharraf presented to the
world his vision of a moderate Pakistan, while last year
he had spewed venom on the Kashmir issue. Last year
Indian prime minister Vajpayee talked of Pakistan being
a leading sponsor of global terrorism. Not this time.
Is this change in tone, rhetoric and the talk of
peace and economic gains an indication of more good
times to come? One hope that posterity will record both
Musharraf and Manmohan in glowing terms.
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.)
