Call the Indian bluff now

Columnist SULTAN AHMED examines the present Indian attitude.

Every foreign trip of a President or Prime Minister of Pakistan has been desribed a big success for the last 50 years, and they include the ceremonial visits. That has become a tradition or compulsive habit of the official media and our diplomats. So if the visit of the Chief Executive, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to New York to attend the millennium session of the UN General Assembly and his stay thereafter has been described a remarkable success that merely conforms to our political tradition and is understandable.

The fact is our people expect too much from such visits. The official media and our officials raise the expectations of the people from such trips, and they are made to hope for significant achievements. When the delegations accompanying the leader is very large, which usually is, (but not in the case of Gen. Musharraf) popular expectations rise higher along with the cynicism that stands in contrast to such expectations. And the critics of the government usually subject the outcome of such visits to hasty analysis and pronounce many of them as failures.

In the case of Gen. Musharraf’s visit to New York 150 presidents, and prime ministers attended the millennium session of the UN and addressed the General Assembly. He did not go there to have bi-lateral talks with the US Administration either. His meeting with President Clinton at the reception given by the US Chief Executive for the visiting heads of states and governments had to be very brief. Hence Gen. Musharraf’s claim that Clinton admired his Kashmir policy during the handshake gave rise to some questions.

Expectations from Gen. Musharraf’s visit increased as he chose to stay there for ten days after the brief US session. Did he do that as the Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee too had scheduled to stay in the US for ten days, inclusive of this planned visit to the Silicon Valley to meet the Indian who are said to be a super success in Information Technology enterprises there. Vajpayee cut short his visit because of his illness. The General did not. He stayed on to meet other leaders as well as Pakistanis there and address a press conference almost everyday.

He might have stayed on also to counteract in advance the campaign or propaganda of Vajpayee against Pakistan, particularly in respect of Kashmir, and underscore the importance of Pakistan in the region and as a friend of the US.

During the Vajpayee visit described Kashmir as the “core issue” between India and Pakistan. That did not please the Indians. The US officials hence sought to underplay that statement saying it was an “important issue” or “a central issue,” as the US Assistant Secretary of State Karl Inderfurth did.

Clinton is interested in a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir issue and playing his part to the extent possible before his term comes to an end by the end of the year. He delights in his role as a peace-maker around the world. He has been successful in making peace in Ireland, Kosovo and has been able to achieve considerable success in the Middle East. The determined manner he sought a settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute through the recent Camp David Summit was remarkable. He brings tremendous energy, enthusiasm and efforts to such negotiations and uses his personal charm on the leaders concerned a great deal. He has great faith in himself as a peace-maker.

He wants a negotiated settlement of the Kashmir issue through the efforts of Vajpayee and Gen. Musharraf unconditionally. But as that is not possible in practice because of the Indian insistence that Pakistan should reduce the violence in Kashmir and create a climate conducive to peaceful and fruitful negotiations, he expects of Pakistan to help reduce the soaring violence in Kashmir.

Clinton is emphatic that the Kashmir issue could not be settled through a war, as has been proved again and again. The boundaries of states cannot be drawn in blood, he had said during his brief visit to Islamabad in March last. He is also convinced the Kashmir issue cannot be settled through an escalation of violence. Violence would breed further violence and not bring about peace, he argues. Other world leaders agree with him, and have been for early negotiations between Pakistan and India for a peaceful settlement in Kashmir.

The Americans are impressed by the manner Hizb-i-Mujahideen announced unilateral ceasefire for three months in Kashmir in August. Although the ceasefire was called off equally unilaterally within ten days, the Americans and Western powers as a whole believe the scope for another ceasefire and negotiations is there. They expect of Pakistan to take steps in that direction and induce not only the Hizb but also other Mujahideen Groups associated with the All Parties Hurriyet Conference to agree to a ceasefire.

The ceasefire was called off last time as India was not ready to associate Pakistan with the negotiations to follow. India wanted to talk only to Hizbul Mujahideen and other Mujahideen groups ready for a ceasefire. The Hizb wanted Pakistan to be associated with the talks to which India was not agreeable. The result was an end of the ceasefire and outbreak of massive violence in which over 100 persons died in a day. The fact is that India is not interested in a fair settlement of the Kashmir issue. It has put off serious negotiations on one pretext or another. At best it agreed to hold talks, as it did following the Simla Accord, but at its own terms, which often means a negation of the negotiations and perpetuation of the Indian hold on Kashmir.

But the loss of life for India in Kashmir is getting increasingly heavy. An average of five to six Indian soldiers or more are dying everyday. The body count is proving to be too tough and too sustained. Even Karan Singh, the former ruler of Kashmir has called for India entering into talks on Kashmir with Pakistan.

A wiser strategy for Pakistan may be to call the Indian bluff on talks on Kashmir, strive to reduce the violence on Kashmir and make as many parties as possible to agree to a ceasefire in Kashmir. The fact is if some parties agree to a ceasefire and some don’t, the violence may continue, and India may still accuse Pakistan of prolonging the violence in Kashmir, and sabotage the talks.

Of course, not all the parties and Mujahideen groups are under the influence of Pakistan in Kashmir. But a large number of them can be influenced by Pakistan to ceasefire for a period so that negotiations could be given a chance.

President Clinton will be in office for the next three months. His good offices could be used in this period to promote parleys between India and Pakistan in association with the leaders of Kashmir for a settlement in Kashmir. As a lame-duck president he may not be too effective, but in respect of Kashmir he is in a position to enlist the support of many of the Western governments who too want a negotiated settlement in Kashmir.

Time is not in favour of Pakistan in the region. It would be better to seek a settlement in Kashmir before India becomes a permanent member of the UN Security Council and before India’s relations and the range of cooperation between the US and India becomes far larger and deeper.

Even otherwise 60,000 to 70,000 Kashmiris have died in the freedom struggle in Kashmir. A number of women and children have fallen victim to Indian guns. Too many homes have been razed to the ground or set on fire. The economy of Kashmir, never too strong, has been in shambles for too long a time now.

On the other side the Indians are promoting bomb explosions in Pakistan. They have now moved from Lahore and other provincial towns of the Punjab to Islamabad itself where 18 persons were killed or over 100 injured on September18. And Gen. Musharraf says it is not easy to deter all such persons with their sneak bombs and time fuse.

Co-operation between India and the US is increasing. If US investments to the extent of 4 billion dollars in India were announced during Clinton’s March visit to India prospective six billion dollar US investment in India were announced during Vajpayee’s visit to the US.

Mr. Vajpayee’s visit to the US is said to mark a watershed in the relations between the two countries and the “Vision statement” between the countries signed during Clinton’s March visit to India is unfolding itself in many ways. And during Vajpayee’s visit to the US a resolution was passed by the US Senate urging the government to lift all sanctions against India.

Non-signing of the CTBT, which is seen as a major demerit of Pakistan, is not seen a demerit in the case of India as the defence capability of India is held as a bulwark against a strong China.

And because of India’s economic strength and rapid expansion the Western states are anxious to cooperate with it and forgive many of its sins of commission and omission.

In the case of nuclear proliferation in the subcontinent India has said it would not be the first to use the nuclear weapons and that commitment is regarded as plus point for India by the West.

The tone and tenor of Vajpayee’s speeches in the US is that India will soon be a second US, the world’s largest democracy with the same ideals and values and same enlightened pursuits. When over there he was throwing light on the brighter side of India and not on the dark and fearsome under-side.

US officials say Clinton wants his four Rs to be observed in South Asia. They are restraint, respect for Line of Control in Kashmir, renunciation of violence and renewal of the dialogue.

Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh has said you can change your friend but not your neighbour. And he talks now of unconditional talks between India and Pakistan but without credible change in the attitude of India in respect of pre-conditions.

But this is the time Pakistan should take the lead, strive for ceasefire and de-escalation of violence in Kashmir and open the road to serious negotiations on the future of Kashmir. If India tries to run away from such a dialogue the whole world will see it, instead of Pakistan being accused of promoting such violence.

If India does not agree to serious dialogue the Mujahideen can go back to their barricade. But India’s bluff should be called now and the only way to do that is to agree to an early and effective ceasefire and purposeful negotiations.