Author: Malini Parthasarathy
Publication: The Hindu
Date: September 10,
2000
As pronounced as are
the repeated expressions of eagerness for the consolidation of the emerging
Indo-U.S. equation, on the part of the Prime Minister and his senior
colleagues during their various interlocutions here, is the determination
on their part to highlight what they perceive is Pakistan's incendiary
role in promoting cross-border terrorism. In doing so, they apparently
hope to validate the Government's stance that in such an atmosphere a dialogue
is not possible between India and Pakistan.
Picking up from the Prime
Minister's assertive observations on the floor of the U.N. General
Assembly on Friday that ``terrorism and dialogue do not go together'',
the External Affairs Minister, Mr. Jaswant Singh, elucidated further
on the same theme at a crowded press conference later in the evening.
Mr. Singh's observations served to expand on the thesis that Pakistan's
role in the spread of terrorism and its attitude precluded a reconciliatory
approach from India.
It must, however, be
noted that much of what Mr. Singh said at the news conference on
India-Pakistan relations was specifically in response to questions emanating
from reporters on Pakistan's stance as reflected in the observations that
its Chief Executive, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, made here. But
it is clear that the rationale set out by Mr. Singh at the press
conference for India's reluctance to engage Pakistan had strong echoes
of the arguments used in diplomatic interlocutions. Indian officials
have made no bones about the fact that their response to suggestions from
other countries, including the United States, to resume the dialogue with
Pakistan has rested on the premise that the dialogue could not be resumed
until cross-border terrorism ended.
Mr. Jaswant Singh
was particularly scathing in reference to what he saw was on Pakistan's
part ``an advocacy of jehad'' which he said was completely ``unacceptable
as an instrument of foreign policy''. If India were to accept such
a concept, that would be tantamount to ``advocating global anarchy''.
Besides, India had the second largest Muslim population in the world.
With more citizens than any other country, who were Muslim, how could India
be the subject of a jehad? ``So, what is this jehad against,'' Mr.
Singh asked. He also maintained that the international community
had ``become far more mindful of the menace of this terrorism''.
Mr. Singh rejected
a suggestion from a reporter that the Indian team was going out of its
way to ``avoid'' interactions with the Pakistani Chief Executive and his
team. On the other hand, Mr. Singh said, there was no such
effort or initiative made by Pakistan for such an interaction. His
reaction was also sought in regard to the parallel drawn between Kashmir
and East Timor by Gen. Musharraf in his U.N. address.
Mr. Singh sharply rejected the analogy as ``untenable'' and noted
that East Timor had been occupied territory whereas Jammu and Kashmir was
never occupied territory. ``If at all it was occupied, it was by
Pakistan.''
Mr. Singh said
that after Lahore and the experiences of Kargil and Kandahar, the Government
had taken a decision that was ``explicit and unambiguous'' that unless
Pakistan ``abjures violence'' and refrained from abrogating every international
agreement, there could be no dialogue. The Minister also said categorically
that the Government required of Pakistan that it ``reaffirms its commitment
to the Shimla and Lahore agreements''.
Mr. Singh's pointed
reference to the need for the Pakistani military regime to reaffirm its
commitment to these agreements, which again had echoes of the Prime Minister's
remarks at the Asia Society and at the U.N., was a significant indication
that another argument had been effectively added to the diplomatic arsenal
in the war of words between India and Pakistan.
The Prime Minister had
chosen to specifically highlight this point in his Asia Society address
where he said: ``For any meaningful dialogue, that country must demonstrate
its commitment to existing bilateral agreements and abjure cross-border
terrorism. Unfortunately, the current leadership of Pakistan has
time and again publicly repudiated both the Shimla Agreement and the Lahore
Declaration.'' Mr. Jaswant Singh's statement at the press conference
buttressed this point and, in fact, appeared to manifest in a new requirement
on India's part of a public reaffirmation by Pakistan's military rulers
of their willingness to respect these earlier pacts.
