There is something in what Jammu and Kashmir chief minister, Dr Farooq Abdullah,
said. That talks between India and Pakistan can go up to a point, but not beyond
it so long as Kashmir remains the "core issue" for the neighbouring country. India
is quite happy to put it permanently on the back burner and go full steam ahead in
resolving issues of trade, commerce, bilateral relations which can bring down the
temperatures to a more manageable level. Pakistan is equally determined that
Kashmir remains up front as the reference point to twist the Indian arm, to sulk
or to browbeat the "very concerned" international community with. Pakistan high
commissioner here in New Delhi has referred to Kashmir once again as the "core
issue," whatever that means in whichever perception.
The two Prime Ministers, Nawaz Sharif and Inder Kumar Gujral, are all set to meet
at the SAARC summit in Male. Noises are hardly belligerent from either side
although Mr Gujral is being made to feel the pressures of the Prime Minister's
Office which is more accountable, and has thus to be more responsible than the
ministry of external affairs. From being accepted as an "excellent" foreign
minister, Mr Gujral is probably surprised to find himself under fire as the Prime
Minister of India. This was bound to happen as a Prime Minister has more to
answer for, more to tackle, more constituencies to address, more issues to resolve
than a minister for external affairs.
For instance the Prime Minister cannot ignore the internal situation in Kashmir in
determining the foreign policy vis-a-vis Pakistan. He cannot even pretend to
ignore it. He cannot pass it off as another colleague's territory while he speaks
of other matters of import with Pakistan. He has to take a position. If Pakistan
insists Kashmir is the core issue and its Prime Minister, President, Army chief,
high commissioner all wave "Kashmir has to be settled" flags, the Prime Minister
of India cannot keep making placatory noises trying to shift the attention from
the core to the periphery. He will not be allowed to by the home constituency even
if he tries.
As Prime Minister, Mr Gujral has to visit Kashmir. As foreign minister, he did not
need to. Now that he has visited the state and promised full cooperation to the
state government, he is under attack from Pakistan. The same media that had
supported him so wholeheartedly only a few weeks ago is now pillorying him as one
who has only domestic interests at heart. The secular Mr Gujral has vanished into
thin air for the hawks in Pakistan who see him now as a representative of what
they term as the "Hindu" lobby. The official military publication has in a recent
article made it clear that it does not expect the question of friendship to
proceed along any line acceptable to the establishment.
Similarly the Prime Minister of India cannot ignore any hardline statement made by
Nawaz Sharif in the course of the meeting in Male. As the foreign minister Gujral
was under considerable pressure from the Indian hawks to harden his position on
Kashmir but he was able to resist the pressure as he was not the man in the
captain's chair. He is now the man at the helm of affairs and the same hawks who
had given way to those favouring a softer approach towards Pakistan will now be
out in the streets baying for his blood if he is seen to have compromised even an
inch on Indian dignity. The Pakistan foreign minister, in an interview to the BBC,
has deliberately sought to blur the distinction between the international and
domestic aspects of what he refers to as the Kashmir dispute. It is not the
accession that Mr Gohar Ayub questioned in his interview, but issues of domestic
concern. Pakistan, of course, claims the right to speak for the Indians in Jammu
and Kashmir, but has India conceded the right? Silence , in this case, can have
rather ominous repercussions.
Mr Gujral is a man of calibre with a long history of dealing with Pakistan at a
government and people-to-people level. He probably knows better than most that
better relations with Pakistan will remain a dream so long as both countries
retain their position on Kashmir. Pakistan, of course, is clear that Kashmir is a
disputed territory, that its accession to India is open to question, and that its
claim cannot be challenged on religious grounds. India, unfortunately, is not so
clear. It has admitted that Kashmir is an issue that can be discussed with
Pakistan in the famous Simla Agreement. It has also reiterated that it does not
recognise the dispute, and any talks with Pakistan will have to be in the
framework of the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity. This,
incidentally, is a vague term that our leaders no longer bother to define. It
seems to be open to individual perceptions about integrity and sovereignty as is
indicative from the fact that several Indian groups have been advocating
self-determination and plebiscite in the Valley as the only "humanitarian" option.
India has also allowed the Americans to set a Kashmir agenda, opening the doors
wide open for their intervention. So today one has US officials and diplomats
giving homilies on what India should do for the people of Kashmir, its domestic
agenda and its perceived human right violations. Kashmir for the US of A is
"disputed territory" The elected government of Farooq Abdullah has come as an
obstacle which the US is getting around by charming the chief minister into
complacency. The US is supportive of his efforts, the US diplomats love Kashmiri
food, the US is willing to go along with the elected government in the hope that
it will eventually accept its not so subtle propaganda for dividing the state into
religion-based autonomous zones.
Farooq is going along. He loves company and enjoys the delegations that relieve
the monotony of daily governance. But he is not pliable. His statements every
now and again must be jolting the Americans into a recognition of reality. The
Line of Actual Control should be converted into an international border. said
Farooq Abdullah one day. This was earlier an American line, given up as it can
work to India's advantage. Relations between India and Pakistan cannot improve so
long as Kashmir remains on the latter's agenda, is the latest from Farooq that
cannot go down well in the US palate. He has lashed out at the Americans for
continuous interference in the Valley and at Pakistan for encouraging terrorism.
Delhi, however, is taking a totally different line. There seems to be no reaction
to the international interference in the Valley. Transparency is one thing, but
official briefings for diplomats and others by our Army commanders is another
agenda altogether. Permanent representatives stationed in the Valley to supposedly
oversee the release of the hostages kidnapped by mercenaries are busy establishing
a network to facilitate what can at this stage be described as future activities.
Kashmir cannot be lost sight of in the larger mission to normalise relations with
Pakistan. The military establishment in Pakistan is interested only in Kashmir. It
has said so many times that, to use an Indian proverb, "kaan puck gayen hain." One
understands Mr Gujral's desire to strike out in the one area with which he is
familiar, namely foreign policy. But he will have to take a realistic position
and not continue chasing shadows that can at best deliver little more than
platitudes, and at worst compromise the country's position in the name of
bilateral relations.
Shadow boxing cannot improve relations between the two neighbours, no matter how
skilled the present leaders might be. Circumstances have destined Inder Kumar
Gujral to be present in Male as India's Prime Minister. As the foreign minister he
had paved the way for this dialogue. But a basic pre-requisite of successful
diplomacy is to recognise the signals on the ground, admit failure if' one has to,
and come out smiling with the confidence of one who knows that he has kept the
interests of his country intact. There is no need to be aggressive, as the hawks
here maintain, or defensive as the "soft" lobby insists. Be yourself, Mr Gujral,
that just might work.
|
||